On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special
license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The Contributor Terms actually still aren't clear about what exactly *is*
happening. The ODbL only applies to the database as a whole, not the
individual data. The individual data is supposed to be licensed under a
different
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:03 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
2) One or more contributors suing for copyright infringement - one of the
things that ODbL supposedly fixes is being sued for this by individual
contributors, so lets discount it for now.
The ODbL doesn't cover the
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think we have now established that whenever you do something with OSM
data that involves a derivative database, but just to make things
simpler for you and not as an absolutely necessary component, then
nobody can
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Where does one draw the line between a Derivative Database, a Collective
Database, and a Produced Work anyway? Can a Produced Work also be a
Derivative Database? If not, which definition overrides the other? An
image qualifies
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't
differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and
company B who does.
What if company C makes a derived database and gives it to company D?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D,
then
company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
The new Contributor Terms contain the equivalent of a joint copyright
assignment to the OSMF.
You have said that multiple times already, but I - and, it seems, others
- don't view it that way.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly*
relevant.
What OSMF requires in the current draft is for you to effectively give up
your copyright altogether. OSMF then copyrights the database as a
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 01/01/10 17:40, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly*
relevant.
What OSMF requires
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
What OSMF _may_ get is a database right in all the bits of
contribution that they get from contributors. I say _may_ because
database right is not a straightforward. Its quite possible they won't
have such a right, but
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be acceptable?
The current situation is acceptable. We all grant
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
What would
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:02 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/1/5 Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com:
2010/1/4 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Hence not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing. You
give up
the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue
You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder (to
the extent the Contents include any copyrightable elements).
If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and
warrant that You have explicit permission
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.comwrote:
I've created a proposed version of the human readable contributor
terms on the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Human_readable
Interesting. I just noticed the
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
BY-SA almost certainly applies
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I see you're talking about the US. So I'll provide a case for you. Key
Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises Inc. held that
the yellow pages of the phone directory were copyrightable. Surely the OSM
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
But there is quite a high threshold for protection since there is a
requirement that databases so protected by reason of the selection or
arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own
intellectual creation.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Frederik posts many wonderful hypothetical situations. ;-)
Here's a completely hypothetical situation. What if I want to import OSM
POIs into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, of course, under CC-BY-SA.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
The user is looking at
produced works, ccbysa for the ccbysa tiles, your choice for the ODbL
tiles.
Here's another completely hypothetical situation. What if I use CC-BY-SA
for the ODbL tiles. And then someone else
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com:
If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected
by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If
there's nothing written
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
James Livingston li...@... writes:
The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material
(e.g.
a planet dump) on your website without requiring people to agree to a
contract a
violation of the ODbL?.
I
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
If you find planet on a bus you are not finding just a pile of ordered
ones and zeros. It's on media of some type. You might sell the disk
as is, but copying the data and selling it would be legally risky. A
Reasonable
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote:
On 23 July 2010 22:14, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
If you find planet on a bus you are not finding just a pile of ordered
ones and zeros. It's on media of some type. You
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ
So, nothing that is solved by ODbL
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright
statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I propose 3) Occam's Razor - the now hundreds of people who've been
involved in the ODbL in the last few years, some of whom are real lawyers
are all wrong and suddenly Anthony with no legal training and is right or
the other
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
* Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM
data in a new work (eg mashups)
The ODbL codifies OSM's consensual haullucination
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
How?
By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves.
I don't follow.
Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:39 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 25 July 2010 02:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy
off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention
copyright
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Ok. There are two types of rights in OSM in its broadest sense:
a) the rights in the individual contributions
b) the rights in the database as a whole
The user preference refers to (a).
So your choice for a is
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
By the way, the database right exists - in certain jurisdictions like the
EU - even if it is not asserted. That means, OSMF is likely to hold database
rights over the database even today. But CC-BY-SA says nothing about
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:50 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote:
On 25 July 2010 12:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
TimSC wrote:
We should also get an official statement from OSMF that they will not
assert their database rights on our contributions.
Of course if
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Is that a topic that's been discussed before on this mailing list?
Here it is in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations
[quote]
If what you create is based on OSM data (for example if you create
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/25/2010 05:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
So why hasn't OSMF moved OSM to CC-BY-SA 3.0? The upgrade clause
makes that nearly as simple as sed 's/2.0/3.0/g' index.html,
right?
Nearly.
But at least one major contribution
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/26/2010 05:06 PM, Anthony wrote:
Go to a Wikipedia article. Look at the notice on the bottom. It says
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License It does not say this article
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced
work without following the terms of ODbL.
Nowhere.
Then you don't have permission to do so. At least
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/26/2010 05:30 PM, Anthony wrote:
No one can assert the database right on a derivative of the OSM
database, because they'd need the permission of the maker of the
database to do so.
Not if OSM(F) waive their own
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
What I just can't tolerate
is this kind of argument that professional lawyers
have some absolute authority, that trumps every
contributor's opinion. I'm not saying that these
lawyers are wrong, but the argument that they
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Two recent, very high-profile judgements in Australia both repudiate the
notion that copyright can protect collections of unoriginal facts. These are
IceTV vs Nine Network (last year) and Telstra vs Phone Directories
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't see that's different from any other drawing,
in digital form.
It depends how creative/original it is.
No it doesn't. It depends whether or not it crosses the threshold
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 03:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
Still waiting for that definition of geodata.
It's a contraction of geographical data.
I didn't ask for an expanded form, I asked for a definition. If you'd
like to be tricky, you can
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2010 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Call it mapping for the renderer if you want. Call it a violation
of the rules of OSM. But that's a copyrightable work.
So would any use of the smoothness
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 05:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
And OSM is more than just geographical data. A way isn't geographical
data.
A way is geographical data. Or possibly geographical metadata. ;-)
I don't think so. Ways contain
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jamie Smith jamiekrsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
By the way, the database right exists - in certain jurisdictions like
the EU - even if it is not asserted. That means, OSMF is likely to hold
database rights over the database even today. But
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I don't trust the OSMF to properly remove
all of my work and derivatives of my work if/when they stop releasing
those derivatives under CC-BY-SA.
In December last year we had a guy also called
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Ed Avis wrote:
Anthony writes:
I'm currently working on a fork.
I'm still hopeful that people will find some compromise, and it won't be
needed. (Myself I would be quite happy if the project chose a dual
licence
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain then
good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract.
No, I'll simply take his data and upload it under an account which I sign up
2010/8/9 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Yes, easier said than done. But in my opinion a free and open
geodatabase of the world is only free if it doesn't impose limits on
it's uses.
If you use OSM in a work, say that you used OSM, and don't sue anybody
for copying that work.
Is that
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
However, lets suppose (hope?) that the CT's are changed so they're no
longer a problem. The question still remains as to whether CC-By or
CC-By-SA are compatible with ODbL+DbCL.
If the work is
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 7:45 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2010 09:37, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By the way, all the images I've personally seen in the Yahoo API (this
isn't the same as maps.yahoo.com) are most likely USGS. So there is
no license. It's
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data
hostage in this way.
I sure hope you've tried your best to listen to their points and
explain yours, and come to an absolute impasse, before accusing them
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
That obviously explains why NearMap is very important to the community in
Australia. But for the project as a whole, one million objects is really not
something we should make a big fuss about.
I think that the people
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anyway, the number of people who have submitted nearmap changesets is 121,
the total number of people who haved edited in Australia is 2752; so while
NearMap-affected data may be up to 10% of Australia, NearMap-using
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
My apologies. In that case: My main problem is that we're having this
discussion now, when the CT were finalised in June, instead of before that.
Which discussion? It looks to me like we did have this discussion
before
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't speak for Chris, but you [Frederik] don't make me nervous because
you're quite
open and you don't drive any issues that may have business implications.
He doesn't make me nervous, but I wouldn't want him (or anyone
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the
lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not
required for
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs:
There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself.
Actually, section 3 will make it harder to upgrade. Under the CT
section 3, the database can only be licensed
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
How does one decliner-changeset in the
middle of a chain of accepter-changestes effect the future data if the
decliner made one position change, and subsequent editors made further
position changes?
I'd say usually it
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the
last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter positioned it
anywhere in the history, delete
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
accepter was modified
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
With a leaky license like the CC-By-SA, the project as a whole gets the worst
of
both worlds, PD and share-alike.
And with ODbL, they get the worst of three worlds, PD, share-alike,
and EULA hell.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit
of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take
the data and just use it, but then it becomes much harder for them to
in turn
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
Production.
Are there any moderators here?
Can we get this troll banned please.
___
legal-talk mailing
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony:
What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq
has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has
copyright.
Iran's copyright protects only works by Iranians
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence
'Jane Smith' might have committed that would cause you to want her to be
banned. She is clearly posting under a fake name: so are at least
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright
assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of
upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and and later
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the
new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I
think
When did you come to that conclusion, and why? Weren't you opposed
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the
contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for
people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to
databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps
however
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective).
Pretty much the same thing in the US. pictorial, graphic, and
sculptural works are included
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be
treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one
way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling
should be considered
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/02/2010 05:09 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it.
+1
ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution.
What it isn't
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
So BY-SA is not reciprocal in every use case at every conceptual level of
abstraction either. And there are cases where this doesn't fit people's
expectations, notably in illustration (photographic and otherwise) as I've
said.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
C'mon, that's what weak copyleft means. Not viral for some types of
derived works.
If that is indeed the definition of weak copyleft - and I'd like you to
cite a source on that - then we're
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is
therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without clashing. And
the user knows this
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 02:58 PM, Anthony wrote:]
Unless you're
talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
database, anyway.
See thread title. ;-)
Okay...Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.
The answer from ODC seems
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
But the extract is not the database. It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.
Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.
Agreed. All I'm saying is that ODbL appears to be equivalent to BY-SA
in this sense, not that it covers less (though, the DbCL stuff might,
see my next
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
AFAICT the DbCL reduces the effective copyright level of the contents of the
database to that of facts.
It's a great answer by Jordan Hatcher. It rests on the assumption
that OSM consists solely of factual data (or, at
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is
a good idea,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:). Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.
The ODbL itself does not draw
If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.
See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.
LOL, I hope you go with that definition.
Actually, I liked an
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it?
Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL
is better than ODbL.
OSM ways aren't generally representations of artistic works, though.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
And then the ODbL says you can do certain things provided you meet
certain conditions?
Yes. DB right covers the whole
Maybe. OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
I think that it's the same with OSM: DbCL ensures that OSM can apply ODbL to
the result of combining all the individual
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
If its the case that OSMF doesn't have a database right in the
contents of its database, then, logically, that right would be jointly
owned by all contributors.
Ah, I see there is a provision for this in the EU database
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/7 ed...@billiau.net:
I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to
discover that this won't extend to Australia.
does this count, given that the contract (CT) is British law?
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2010 02:26, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Probably depends what court you sue in.
It shouldn't matter _where_ you sue. In principle at least the court
seized of the matter should apply the usual principles
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
with my eyes firmly on the upcoming license change, I wonder how we are
going to deal with people who have imported data which is suitable from a
license point of view, but whom we cannot reach or who do not agree to
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
