Hi,
On 07/12/11 01:05, David Groom wrote:
Well that's what I asked to this list on 17 June [1] , and you will see
from the only answer received (which incendtally was from a member of
the LWG) that an except of an ODbL database will always be a Derivative
Database, and not an ODbL licensed datab
y we'd lose too much data; we'd rather
patch things up *before* we switch. And this is not a recent change of
plans; it was always planned to wait until it is feasible to make the
switch. Personally, I expect it to happen in the first half of 2012 but
I have no LWG inside knowledg
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Gert, you seem to be under the impression that the license change
process has somehow failed just because we're still handing out the
planet under CC-BY-SA. But you are wrong; this has always been the case.
Maybe that too, but I meant to write "this has a
Hi,
On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote:
You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the
transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not
"someone else's" benefit, but a benefit for the whole community.
I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and
eally is a superset of the CT
and will be accepted in lieu of those.
I'd love to sign such a declaration myself but with the amount of Bing
tracing I've done it would be difficult.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E00
Hi,
Simon Poole wrote:
> With other words: please get a life.
+1
I'm tired of hearing how people have been "disenfranchised" and
"cannot continue to contribute" to OSM. They're talking as if they were
in a wheelchair and we had just built a giant staircase at OSMF
headquarters.
But the truth
Hi,
On 08/24/11 16:03, Simon Poole wrote:
I think I've said this before, but any way you look at it, there is a big
difference between TimSC and the US Census Bureau. I just can't
see how we could use a mappers data without some kind of assurance
that the mapper actually has the rights necessary
ntains the data to fill all
these "holes", this one being CC-By-SA licensed.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetma
Hi,
On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by
decliners or non-responders.
That is correct as far as I know.
There is no contributor who has ever contributed even a 50% majority
of nodes on these routes. However, they wou
agree - let's rather invest a little
more work now and have a solid foundation for the future, than build on
sand just to get it done quicker.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
e the database
behind it. That, however, would have the consequence that you have to
share the image itself, which would not be the case under the "Produced
Works" provision.
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,
On 11/28/11 10:43, 80n wrote:
If you cannot reproduce the Produced Work 100% faithfully from the
Derived Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of
the information required to create the Produced Work?
It doesn't, and it doesn't have to. Only in so far as the *database
Hi,
On 11/28/11 11:58, 80n wrote:
That's a very fine line you are trying to draw.
Yes, I agree it is difficult. I think that it is entirely possible to
arrive at an identical end product through different processes, where
one process has different license implications than the other.
For e
ensure share-alike.
If it can be circumvented then it fails one of its main purposes.
Oh, it does protect OSM's database all right, but drawing lines onto a
printed-out image is not making a derived database (and frankly I
wouldn't be all that interested in the geometry of tho
Hi,
On 11/29/11 11:49, Ed Avis wrote:
I think you have to be careful about going too far with community norms.
Of course. They must not introduce new material, but they can be used to
clarify areas where things aren't crystal clear.
Community norms can serve to narrow the permission (as in
Hi,
On 12/06/2011 11:16 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
Not that this is confidential, but this should have actually gone to the
LWG.
Happens to me all the time. Stupid auto-completion.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09"
Hi,
On 12/08/2011 02:20 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
They produced a written report
I am intrigued by the joint authorship concept. If that was true
(relatively) universally, then we could perhaps use that to force even
those who haven't agreed to the license change to allow us (their
co-authors) to
Hi,
I've added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_create
Maning,
On 12/16/11 08:26, maning sambale wrote:
As what the subjects says, instead of removing and recreating tainted
data, I think it's best (in some cases) to revert to the last known
clean version.
This makes sense.
Sometimes you will not even have to revert to a "last known clean
versio
Hi,
On 12/16/11 12:12, Ed Avis wrote:
I guess "ct=clean" would be better since there may be data which is usable
under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL.
But are we interested in such data? I mean - if there *was* data not
usable under ODbL, then it would be a good idea to
Hi,
On 12/16/11 14:08, Steve Bennett wrote:
,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the
place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to "fix"
names?
Do we have any clear policy spelling out what constitutes "clean"?
No.
Presumably there are so
--
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
uary which was a bit over-optimistic!
I've fixed the configuration and the graphs are less euphemistic now.
They are meant to inform, not to manipulate.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:27:19 -0500
Richard Weait wrote:
> - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
* treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapp
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:32:21 +
Dermot McNally wrote:
> 1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly "tainted" node which
> has both been moved and stripped of any "tainted" tags would also be
> considered clean. Is this so
Yes.
> 2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped by an agr
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 +
Dermot McNally wrote:
> 1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it
> 2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag
> 3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or
> she does not have enough information to assert the cuisine tag
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:32:35 +0100
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
...
Activated now & notified talk and talk-de lists, on both the WTFE view
and on the database accessed by plugins/license views in editors.
Bye
F
(taking this to legal-talk)
Russ,
On 12/27/11 05:08, Russ Nelson wrote:
But this way is still marked as "created by a nodecision user":
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=3753605
Well, maybe it was created, but the sins of the father do not pass
onto the son. No part of what the nodecisio
Hi,
On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in the current version
Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the
tag name (individually or for a large number
aic note to the mapper but not copyright on the interpretation of
that note made by someone else.
I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a
list with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how
many false positives/negatives we get.
B
ssumed to be dervied from whatever the decliner put
there.
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,
On 01/06/12 11:38, Nick Hocking wrote:
In this case it is essential to actually get rid of the maxspeed tags.
The bot used a completly wrong algorithm and the data is dangerously
wrong. Just today I drove down a high traffic road where OSM
(curtesy of the bot) had the wrong max speed).
It
Hi,
On 01/06/12 12:08, Nick Hocking wrote:
"Is there a consensus in the Australian communitiy that these tags are
worthless and should be removed"
How many votes do I need :-)
Well, nobody shouting "stop, stop, these tags are useful to me!" would
already be a start.
I can see only two ways
Hi,
On 01/06/12 13:13, Nick Hocking wrote:
Although the usefullness(or correctness) of these tags is not being
discussed in talk-au, there appears to be a concensus (7-0)
about removing them now.
Ok, I've discussed this off-list with Nick and did a test run for 1000
(of roughly a quarter mill
whole object.
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
one step back and you'll see
that basically we're all of the same tribe.
And this is what is difficult to understand. The tribe and its
"sub-group" are still far closer in culture, ideas, and outlook than the
tribes on the other side of the river. They should stick together.
ding to the
then-believed-final rules, it could happen that someone later points out
an oversight, or a court decides something, forcing us to remove things
we thought we could keep or vice versa. You can only ever go up to 80%
certainty in these matters. Demanding more is
gnore the copyright of small contributors because they won't
sue anyway"
Not my style.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing lis
Hi,
On 01/19/12 03:07, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28..
pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported
ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters
import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2
order to prevent us from overseeing something.
Well if you find certainty, be sure to inform us since we'll be very
interested ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
hase would actually make
people re-map more and better compared to the phase we are in now? And
if so, why?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
leg
ice versa. There are simply not
so many cases of that to warrant all the brouhaha that is made.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstre
Hi,
(taking this to legal-talk from talk where it doesn't belong)
On 02/13/12 00:00, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote:
I accepted the license, and also ticked the box that said I was happy with
my contributions to be considered public domain.
Hypothetically, if some years in the future
* us that there is
this additional requirement (CT only require that the mapper makes sure
data is "compatible with current license")
Any future license change to, say, CC-BY or GFDL3.15 or whatever would
then require that data to be deleted, but we wouldn't even know that.
anybody involved has already booked his vacation after
April 1st, we may continue in May to pursue a clean license change.
Cheers
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailin
2/3 of active contributors" clause and
therefore create a situation in which no future OSMF can change the
license without going through what we go through now. Of course the CTs
cannot be changed retroactively but doing so for new signups is
effective enough.
Bye
moving this burden
from UMP, then OSMF could offer to publish a derived non-highway
database themselves, which would lead to UMP only having to point to
that database and say "there's our source and it's ODbL".
Bye
Frederik
--
Freder
appy to
lose a few roads in the US". These reasons are especially bad because
they an be repeated month after month and thus could make the process
drag on endlessly.
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
r journalist to contact RichardF
directly.
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
with the exact same number of
nodes which all have the exact same relative position to each other.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing lis
s the
database", or if in CC's case the adaptation is only the web site with
the route instructions...
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
lega
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
ne else's copyright because the original owner already
authorized OSMF to distribute their 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
don't see a problem
anymore, as there wouldn't be a problem for me to provide something like
"live-views" of the data. But it would be nice to hear some comments if
I'm right, about the way to handle the data!?
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°0
Does this mean that they can do that
Sure.
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
copies for you that would already be distribution.
(What happens of the MoD takes an OSM map, draws a little bit on top of
it and stamps it "secret" - is that allowed at all, given that the
current license requires that they must not add any restrictions to the
material...?)
Bye
Fr
n't).
But as I said at the beginning, I'm not aware of any policy already in
existence.
As a rule of thumb, as long as you don't do anything that provokes a
community outcry you'll probably be ok.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.
derived products that are re-distributable?"
"2. Creating a slope map"
This all sounds as if I *can* download the data and use it for
hillshading as long as I don't redistribute the data itself. Doesn't it?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@r
out "Redaction 1"/"Redaction 2". If you have any
Rails skills then your help is certainly welcome.
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
ne took the image from Wikipedia and then credited "Wikipedia" -
they *have* to continue to use the OSM attribution and ODbL license
notice or else they violate CC-BY-SA. But that's the same with any other
image on Wikipedia so I guess it should be clear to all.)
Bye
Frederik
--
whether you get away with it is probably a question of
jurisdiction.
(If anyone wants to pursue this discussion I would very much ask them to
peruse the mailing list archives with the search term "reverse
engineering" and read up on past discussions so that we don't have to
could team up with a co-publisher, publish
your ODbL Produced Works to him and he forwards them to the world
without you ever having to release anything. It would be a loophole that
demands quick fixing ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N
ossible to
licene Produced Works under CC, or we will have to explicitly disallow it.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
ated re-extraction of our data
with less than x% precision loss is a derivative database and never a
produced work
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-tal
y the power to direct their
activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant).
<<<
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
it is not mentioned at all.
I think you need a better example
No; the example is good enough for me, thank you ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing lis
Hi,
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:33:59 +0200
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> That's not the point, you still can't mix the future OSM data with
> CC-By-SA data in the same database and publish that. This ability to
> "mix" is one of the main features of free licensing and if you're
> using a license incom
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:23:00 +0200
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Not dropping CC-BY-SA would send the signal that
... everything that has been said about CC-BY-SA not sufficiently
protecting our data was rubbish, and that we are happy with every user
choosing whichever is the "weaker" license for t
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:44:41 +
Mike Dupont wrote:
> Lets be clear here, I think the problems is not because of the license
> change, but the contributor terms , ( the click through license and
> the mass collection of all IP rights by the OSF).
There is no click-through license.
There
they have liability paranoia.
Therefore I think neither license is an obstacle for them, because
neither forces them to open up the car navigation system to free imports
by the user.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
Hi,
On 08/10/2012 10:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
The ODbL has a clause softening that rule (4.7. b "parallel
distribution"), which essentially says that you can distribute
DRM-encumbered databases if you offer a non-DRM alternative that is "at
least as accessible as the non-rest
license also has alternatives to "making the data available";
you could also make the process available that leads to the data. But I
assume this is not an interesting option for you.
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
accept that; I don't think that "geocode as
much as you want without sharing any data" is possible with the ODbL
data set.
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
d I guess there will be some loophole to
make it not 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
s
(unless you put some in).
If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition
to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may
not; this depends on how you interpret the "suitably calculated to make
anyone ... aware" clause.
Bye
Frederi
ot;, or "buy ArcGIS and then do that" - but what if the
algorithm includes "run this code, it will take 1000 days", or "make
sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows...".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00
ot interested in a functioning road network at all but who would be
prepared to invest quite a bit of money to "switch2osm" their geocoding.
So it seems that maybe address data is as valuable as the street network
and should have the same level of protection?
Bye
Frederik
--
Fred
ding..."; OSM has even been offered, on several occasions,
"donated" POI data where it later turned out that they had not surveyed
the POI locations but just ran their addresses by a commercial geocoder
and disregarded the license restrictions.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
sufficiently secretive as not to hurt
their business.
I'm willing to hear concrete examples but I think that talk of "giving
up" and "too much at stake" sound like OSM was unsuitable for geocoding
which in my opinion it clearly isn't!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik R
o:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#What_sort_of_access_to_Derivative_Databases_is_required.3F
The page is quite old; the green boxes represent legal advice that we
have received at the time.
Bye
Frederik
--
F
nd out the fastest route at a given
time of day or so - that kind of tight integration with OSM data would
clearly be "ask a lawyer" terrain if you want to determine wheter you
have a collective or derivative database.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N
for the purpose of instruction -
some people might look at our web page and think "I'll simply do as they
do, they'll know what is right".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
s you
from prohibiting stuff!
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
ardware device that can
*only* play the encrypted cards, would a "here's the pbf download" link
not be less accessible for him...?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
use
and I'm not bound by their respective license terms.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ivated as a base map in tha layer switcher) seems to indicate
that buildings look similar to OSM but not the same (my guess - both
imported from same source?) while many parks, commercial areas, and
graveyards seem to have 100% identical geometries to OSM.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ##
yer would not have to be released because
OSM was not used in creating it.
Was that layperson friendly enough?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
ace.
I don't think that's acceptable.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 13.01.2014 22:52, Stephan Knauss wrote:
> As long as other map suppliers like Google and
> Bing are happy by being only credited on a separate page,
Are they?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09&
ut the facts depicted by the images are not
> property of Google.
>
>Your thoughts, please
The general opinion on this list has been, for cases where there wasn't
a clear-cut license that answers these questions: "We'll use the data if
the copyright owner says we can
g speed recordings to OSM street
data to find out which street the recording was for in the first place,
thereby creating a derivative database.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
inition of feature types arbitrary - could I
make a restaurant database where I take "all revolving Italian rooftop
restaurants" from OSM and all others from a different data set, or is
"revolving Italian rooftop restaurant" too specific a
n the page are
essentially such misunderstandings, unless of course they are not
substantial.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@ope
ause if it is, it seems to require a
*lot* more explanation because it doesn't sound very convincing to me.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
l
n of "is this for human consumption or for a
computer's", it is clearly for a computer's - since the coordinates form
the basis for filtering which items to display to the user. A human
wouldn't be able to sift through the list so quickly.
B
again we hear, make it easier for people to geocode their
proprietary databases and OSM can only benefit from it because everyone
who saves $$$ using OSM somehow magically "helps" OSM. I'm not convinced
of that.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°
look at the letter of
the license but also at the process that has led to its implementation,
or in other words, at the intention that people had when they
implemented the license.
And that, in turn, is probably why we're talking so much about use cases
and do-we-want-this and do-we-want-tha
t; alternative because the idea is that
your proprietary data (store opening times or whatnot) form a collective
database with the ODbL-Share-Alike location data.
It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or correct me
where I might have misrepresented the discussion.
Bye
Frederik
-
ly an empty column for use cases #2-#4 and #7. I added no extra
column for #5 and #6 because those struck me as identical under both
interpretations but of course I might be wrong.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_
ely deciding what to show in a produced
> work from a 'closed' database by comparing against an odbl licensed
> database somehow imposes that the closed database must also be odbl?
Not the closed database, only the selection made from the closed
database with the help of ODbL-licensed
301 - 400 of 684 matches
Mail list logo
