Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
lulu-...@gmx.de wrote:
As the topic of the map is discussed controversely, vandalism is
likely to happen, I am afraid.
If the user attempts to use OSM as a vehicle to further his own side in
whatever "controversy" you are alluding to, risking to bri
Open
Source. I think we can and should do the same thing for Open Data.
What's wrong with the Open Knowledge Definition from our friends at OKFN?
http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'
ender 4.4c completely
useless.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
Sure, any Derivative Database that is made available to a 3rd party falls
under the share-alike. No doubt about that. This handled in section 4.4. The
exceptions are handled in the following section 4.5.
In case of "your" Produced Work, you make the Produced Work av
Hi,
On 07/09/2010 02:22 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
So let's say Australia wants to stick with CC licences because most of your
data is imported and you reckon it's not relicensable under ODbL.[1]
And let's say Europe wants to move to ODbL because CC isn't valid for data
in most of Europe and
Hi,
Liz wrote:
And the arrangement was that
whether the licence change went ahead or not
depended on how many people agreed to relicense their data
Firstly, if anyone ever said "how many people" then that was a mistake,
because the number of people is of little interest, it is the amount of
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
If OSMF makes a stupid decision then you can set up freestreetmap.org
with the same tools, all the existing data, and the existing licence.
If someone wants to have freeworldmap.org, I registered that a while ago
in case I had to fork OSM but I'm willing to give i
John,
John Smith wrote:
You are correct, it's obvious that there is some people unhappy with
the status quo.
I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like
living in a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute
- you might like to be able to retain the s
ns that if
ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we would
have to go through the whole "2/3 of active members have to accept" poll
to upgrade.
Is that a desired safeguard against OKFN releasing "bad" new license
versions, or is it an oversight?
annot publish the tiles.
Right?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
nfluence what happens in the future.
I wouldn't ask for more at this time.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
legal - not "legal
specifically for OSM and only if the license is X".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Tim,
TimSC wrote:
I don't get that impression when I read the wiki. It says it is only a
"statement" and making this statement does not change "what people can
do with your data". Looking at the wiki, those lines were written by
Frederik Ramm. I guess I'll ask h
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
3) I can "consider" my edits public domain to my heart's content, but
if they are based on other people's non-PD edits, then they aren't
going to be fully PD.
I think in the wake of the license change we will have to develop a
number of very interesting metrics telling u
Hi,
TimSC wrote:
You talk as if ODbL was a reality. I suspect it might be soon, but
currently it is not in effect. How does the current license situation
block PD? I am assuming each PD declaration is in effect immediately,
while ODbL has yet to be adopted.
The page you quoted,
http://wiki.
Hi,
TimSC wrote:
Yes, a database right exists. The "author" of the database is probably
the person/organisation who created the schema, wrote and enforced the
criteria for acceptance into the database. (You see my point that "the
community" may have a stake in this.)
I have heard more than o
says you can now use
the software under another license. Often there won't even be a separate
download link.
It is perfectly sufficient if someone agrees to ODbL, we can then take
his data from our existing database.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.
ould be great. I am not
sure if it is possible legally though, because the very nature of
database right is to protect the whole database - once you deal with
database right you don't deal with individual contributions or data
items any more.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede.
Hi,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Rob Myers schrieb:
Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to
declare other licences "compatible" with BY-SA and allow derivatives
to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible
yet.
So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then find
Hi,
Tom Hughes wrote:
On 04/08/10 12:06, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I also still searching archived versions of old (pre double
licensing) versions of contribution terms. You answered it in
talk-de citing a small sentence but with a preceding "I guess" ...
An archive without guess wou
Hi,
80n wrote:
Does anyone know whether the code exists to do this yet?
I doubt it.
How are way splits handled (only one half of the way will have a full
history)?
I think they can be auto-detected (i.e. where in one changeset, one way
suddenly loses some nodes and another springs up that
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient
to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip
through, then fix them in case of complaints.
Which goes against the usual OSM policy of rejecting it if unsure,
rather t
Hi,
80n wrote:
This quickly gets quite complex when factored across multiple
generations of way splits.
You're right, let's just ignore way splits altogether then ;)
Changesets are a relatively recent invention. Edits prior to the
introduction of changesets don't have any formal grouping so
want.
Just a thought. Not necessarily bright. Might have its problems, might
also work.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
atabase and have to stop handing out non-relicensed
data. We can, and will, use that time to make sure the process is as
painless as possible - all of us.
Setting deadlines, in my eyes, doesn't really help.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'
lding
back on edits which are based on sources that might not be ODbL
compatible - because they fear it would all be for nothing. If they'd be
given the chance to contribute their stuff to a purely CC-BY-SA fork
then perhaps they would.
Bye
Frederik
--
F
le's copyright".
That's absurd, and you're making a clown of yourself by repeating your
question every two days.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
is documented in the
implementation plan on the wiki) that immediately before changeover, a
last "cc-by-sa planet" including full history will be made available.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'
Russ,
On 08/08/2010 06:34 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Here are the
questions we arrived at (thanks to Skud aka Kirrily Robert for taking
notes):
Good observations. Might be worth to discuss with folks at
odc-disc...@lists.okfn.org as well. I'll forward your post there for
people to be aware of yo
Hi,
On 08/08/2010 09:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelson wrote:
copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and
CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to
get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the
p
Liz,
On 08/08/2010 10:21 AM, Liz wrote:
You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian
coastline.
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
again says "we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline".
Honestly, I will.
Bye
Fre
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 Anthony on legal-talk who
said:
I live in the United States, where
fact
ng a
copy of their data.
If it later turns out they lied, or were certifiably insane at the time
they made the statement, I can always remove it again.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
ot;the same email" but is
completely separate. Any license decision you make on one account will
not influence the other.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
Hi,
David Groom wrote:
However from a legal point of view the CT terms say is is an agreement
between "you" and OSMF.
Interesting, and probably true. But since making the second account
forces you to use a different email address, how will we ever know with
certainty that "you" and "you" are
David,
David Groom wrote:
Secondly from the second line of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo#Legalities you will see the
phrase "Yahoo! have agreed to let OSM use their aerial imagery" [ under
the old licence terms], and large parts of the remainder of that page go
on to mention the a
tever that
is). - A clause in the ODbL that lifts protection after a period which
is shorter than the CC-BY under which the source came would make the
source inadmissible.
I like your idea but I don't think now is the right time for it.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede
Hi,
Emilie Laffray wrote:
While I am not a legal expert, I will try to answer that one.
Companies can already make money from OpenStreetMap: there are plenty of
examples around (Skobbler, Cloudmade, Geofabrik, etc). There is
nothing preventing a company from using the data. However, they a
(moving this thread to legal-talk)
Valent:
AFAIK with new Contributor Terms [1] all data entered into OSM can be
taken by some company, closed and they could create a product made
profit on it.
Grant:
No, they have to make the data available. The data is share-alike.
http://www.opendatacommo
No, I don't think so.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
erly, thus bringing
them "into" the system.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
s.
I'm posting this to legal-talk because even though this posting does not
deal with anything legal, I have a hunch that follow-ups will.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I think that the people count more than the data they contribute.
That's a good statement. I'm happy that you have finally come to
understand what this project is about! I was beginning to think you
might just be here for the fun of the argument, whatever argument it
Andrzej,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about?
Let's put it this way:
If 300 mappers are enough to put in a veto against the CT or the license
change then we can stop right now, because I am pretty sure that
*whatever* you do (even if y
John,
John Smith wrote:
But in the grand scheme of things, not changing the license (I *knew* this
would become a license discussion ;) is, in my opinion, likely to alienate
Because you keep making it a license issue, but of course it's not and
you know it.
In my eyes the ODbL and CT are par
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as "the
license change". I don't think that you can separate them.
Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless
they are a package deal?
No, my statement above is not politically or
Hi,
Francis Davey wrote:
Has anyone given much thought to how this works for the sui generis
database right of the European Union?
Certainly the EU hasn't, the whole database right is written for a world
where company X pays employees to gather data.
I am wondering (as others have wondered
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
(Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what you're
Exactly... you are trying to sell us a particular happy meal that
isn't making us happy...
"us" being...?
And I'm not trying to sell anything. If you agree that some for of CT is
required, and y
the data
working group. I am not essential to anything OSM does, don't hold an
OSMF post (nor have I ever sought one)...
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
sidered for
some exceptional cases where imports under, say, CC-BY-SA have already
been done but as you correctly say, these can become a liability later.
It will almost certainly (IANABM, IANALWGM) not be considered for future
imports.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm #
Hi,
Simon Biber wrote:
I and many others need a firm commitment to ensure contributions continue to be
protected by attribution and share-alike in the future.
-1
(I mean, you may "need" that but you shouldn't get it. As an aside I
also want to point out that the use of "continue to be protec
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves
quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and
distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database
that is covered by the ODbL.
I would be interested to discussing
Hi,
Kevin Peat wrote:
Well I think someone wanting a PD project would need to start from
scratch anyway as it would be hard for them to demonstrate that any
existing data wasn't encumbered with other licenses given the wide use
of imports and tracing in lots of countries.
I think so too, but
ta OSM cannot continue to use would be safe
with them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
Russ Nelson wrote:
Mostly it's about community, which is why
it's here and not on le...@.
Unfortunately in my rebuttal of this I have to discuss legal stuff so
I'll do it in legal-talk and invite anybody who is interested to read it
there.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik
eone sued for share-alike they could at least
point to that statement to support their cause, whereas in the future OSMF
would actively reject giving such support.)
The worst thing that could happen is the license change failing and OSMF
afterwards pretending that we were still a share-alike project.
Bye
the community have agreed, we're only
using clause 3 of the contributor terms!").
I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
s of them are necessary and some are not necessary but prudent,
among them the much-discussed clause 3; only the most presumptuous
person would believe that a license they choose today will automatically
be the best license for the project for all time.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose
today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time.
The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are
ner - one of which, sadly, you do
not seem to be capable. For you, this is not a debate but an ego contest.
I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have
the impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that.
and which is "weak"? The differ in where exactly share-alike
is applied, but they do not differ in strength.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
k."
See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
are today). But imports under ODbL do not become
*impossible* with the CTs as they are suggested - they just require OSMF
approval. So the question is not put very well.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
mple and doesn't
actually open any loopholes because even if you took the full DB and put
the PostGIS dump on a CD declaring it a Produced Work, someone who used
it would fall under the reverse engineering clause.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede.
al with such questions in the future? Is the OSMF board
the ultimate arbiter? Can the definition be changed to be clearer?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_
er can simply refuse to agree to the contributor terms.
Indeed; the publisher could even be completely oblivious of them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailin
quot;owns" the resulting data in OSM? A,
who devised the algorithms? B, who pushed the button and used his
computing time and network bandwidth? Both? Neither?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
ming a file? Does copyright then lie with the
author of the complex program, or is actually pushing the button on the
software in this case non-trivial enough to warrant copyright?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
Hi,
Grant Slater wrote:
The NASA SRTM filled dataset is PD licensed. No issue.
The 3rd party void filled SRTM is often not PD licensed. Some sets are
explicitly non-commercial.
This is the case with the map that Martin mentioned, it uses the
noncommercial CGIAR dataset and thus cannot make co
d at all.
I firmly believe that collecting third-party geodata into an user
editable pool is NOT the main purpose of OSM, and even detracts us.
Thus, I would never accept future liabilities in return for being
allowed to import a third-party data source.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eM
ople to draw in non-OSM data
at the rendering stage so that they don't feel tempted to drop their
rubbish into OSM just so that they get a nice map rendered.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
he world. We are certainly not going to let the OS dictate the
license we choose for our data.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
Kevin Cordina wrote:
What's important is that the licence choice be not used as a stick to enforce
a particular policy about data imports or other aspects of mapping.
And vice versa. "I want to import and that's why we cannot use
" is tail-wagging-dog as well.
Bye
Frederik
___
risk of sidelining OSM in the long run, or such. "We already have
some data that is not compatible with " is not one of them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_
l of
this - and why should we?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
han including it verbatim in 4.2b.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Kevin,
ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
(b) that there is a very clear (and legally sound) description of the
effect of the new licence when the time comes to vote so we can make
an informed decision which way to vote based on the effect it will
have.
I don't know how long you have been following t
Hi,
On 10/02/2010 03:43 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
This is pretty clear, then: OSM also needs to be usable on Serbian territory,
so it can't use the maps.
Right... and OSM needs to be usable in India too, so it must show
Kashmir as belonging to India as it would otherwise be illegal. And of
course O
Hi,
On 10/03/2010 04:31 AM, John Smith wrote:
None of those examples applies since it was a question about copyright
ownership.
I don't see why we should treat a nation state's laws about copyright
any different than a nation state's idiosyncratic laws about maps or
surveying. If you are in
s, i.e. "B" would be a subset of "A", so that the
intersection of both would always be "B".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ighted bits submitted by various users and combine them
then they don't suddenly become copyrighted - or maybe they do, but then
it's your copyright and not that of the original contributors (think of
tearing a magazine to shreds and then gluing together a nice picture
from the coloured pi
this not mean that we'd have to remove their contribution from OSM
immediately because the required permissions for re-use/distribution
have not been granted?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'
Hi,
Richard Weait wrote:
Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so
insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or
database right?
Any edit made by a robot - e.g. one that fixes spelling mistakes -
certainly qualifies for "never be considered for c
e
author - which is something completely different!
Thus, no problems with CC0, WTFPL etc. on that side.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-tal
to share
the database that contains your picture IDs keyed against locations in
the ODbL case since it could be argued that that database is "derived
from OSM" and "publicly used" in your service.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N
he JOSM startup notice which
basically portrays the license change as a done deal, but so does the
Wiki banner we're showing and personally I believe the only way to pull
this through is indeed to make it very clear that we're committed to
making the license change, rather than dithering
that database would force you
to release the whole database under ODbL which would violate the terms
of CC-BY-SA.
There are ways in which data could legally be combined but that's really
going too much into detail for talk.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ##
t; isn't made explicit, but I think it is safe
to say that an upgrade along that path would be possible with a lot less
eyes watching than an upgrade under the upgrade per clause 3 of the CT!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'3
op dissent from your Vision." when they
popped up here to discuss probably didn't help).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-tal
ODbL in the
first place.
It was Creative Commons who started the process of looking for a license
that led to ODbL. It's just that Creative Commons left that process
along the way.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'
Hi,
On 11/17/10 04:26, Anthony wrote:
They left what process? The goal of the process was not to find a
license like the ODbL. The goal of the process was to address the sui
generis database right within the CC framework.
This is not a contradiction. The ODbL could well have been "the way to
Richard,
On 11/17/10 03:30, Richard Weait wrote:
There have been several revisions to a new draft of the Contributor
Terms from the LWG over the last few meetings.
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb
The language sounds more human now which is good. I like it how parts of
the
Hi,
On 11/17/10 10:46, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is
considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as
the term means they would lose control over how their data is
licensed.
No, the data contributed to OSM can come
r the currently-used licence, but you are not
required to give carte blanche for future changes.
I agree with Francis Davey that the current draft says this clearly enough.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09&q
Hi,
On 11/18/10 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
(I believe that the "reasonably calculated" in 4.3 imposes a downstream
requirement as part of this: in other words, you must require that
attribution is preserved for adaptations of the Produced Work, otherwise you
have not "reasonably calculated"
Licensor grants to You a [...] license to do any act that is
restricted by copyright [...]. These rights include, without limitation,
the right to sublicense the work."
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
protected by database
right once again and you need a license to use it.
Otherwise, only the most obscure works (certainly not a printed map)
could fall under the "Produced Works" rule.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'
Anthony,
On 11/19/10 14:38, Anthony wrote:
If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
extract of data.
You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works
that way and see if OSMF sue
Hi,
On 11/19/10 15:38, Ed Avis wrote:
That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new
licences
and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a guarantee
beyond
doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will still be okay.
For me, as a PD
lt to make any changes to it.
The boundary between "just a difficult file format" and "encryption" is
probably rather grey. The'd surely be on the safe side if they
distributed the contents of that file on a parallel channel in an easily
readable form.
Bye
Frederik
101 - 200 of 684 matches
Mail list logo
