p a
warning if what you're currently mapping is outside of such a
spatio-temporal window).
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
e data format a secret if you, in parallel, distribute
an ASCII dump of the same.
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
I don't have enough information to say whether the PDF will be a
produced work or a database, but even if it were a database, it could be
a "collective database" in which case share-alike would only apply to
the ODbL part inside.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...
alling the party out for what they're doing, which would likely damage
their business.
The "moral stick" is probably the strongest weapon in our arsenal
anyway, looking at the size of our legal battle chest ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede..
is the
exact opposite of such reciprocity.
Asking for PD while not giving your own away as PD is quite standard
actually - not least among most of those calling for OSM to be PD.
Nothing funny about that.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.o
t
> legal/desirable that the POI is added anyway?
Sure, buildings to hold the POI are not required.
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
n-substantial parts
and combining them to form a database is the same as if you had
extracted a larger portion directly. This is true even if the data is
extracted by different individuals.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N4
acle for other people's
geodata.
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
ar as
"this address is at location lon=x, lat=y" is concerned).
Is there any doubt about any of these three statements either on your
side or anyone else's?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
ely based on OSM but had proprietary data improvements, and the
exposure OSM would get from that would be worth nothing as nobody else
could use that same database.
This would be a use case that the license is specifically designed
against and we must take care not to weaken our position he
geocoding result as a produced work, combining a
large number of them in a database would still get you a derived
database again.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
everse geocoding result, and that you join them when displaying,
and make the OSM result database available under ODbL on request. I
would also tell you that it is very unlikely for anyone to request the
data in the first place.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00&#x
hare-alike applies. This is not great - I'd love a license
that forces people to share stuff we're interested in and ignores
everything else. But it is hard to put that in lawyerese ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°
ot;. If we as a
project find an answer to that, then we can let lawyers fix (or
interpret) the license so that it delivers what we want.
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
k the wheelchair status they observed locally, and you collect that
information in a separate data set, keyed by the OSM ID of the
restaurant. Your application queries the database in a way that your
user reports override the information taken from OSM, but for
restaurants where you don't have user
t mean it is the natural receptacle.
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
heir spare time to improve it), then it
will not be viable in OSM either - only that the situation would be less
obvious.
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
opy of the data"), or have they been like ("Hello XXX
your data is ODbL hence you must give it to me") from the start?
I trust this satisfies your desire for a discussion about this topic.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23
his" request or did you
choose a "you have to share this so give it to me" wording?
Bye
Frederik
[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
--
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
agreement, the "User"
is the individual mapper, who creates a derivative work on his computer
and then uploads to OSM; in that case the mapper would have to "mark"
his upload (possibly in a source tag?) with "contains Copernicus data
(year of reception)" and then OSM would b
ch is
ok, then *all* data you uploaded might have to be removed again.
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
minimum possible that I'm not comfortable
discussing this further. If keeping data proprietary for financial gain
is part of your business model, you should really just look into working
with proprietary data to start with, rather than trying to create an
"OSM++" that you don't h
or under Your control by
either more than 50% ownership or by 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"
_
aded, but other than that, you need to
use your favourite search engine with something like
"site:lists.openstreetmap.org legal-talk mykeyword".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
hem if that kind of notice is enough.
This is a similar issue as we always have with CC-BY licensed data.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing
and still
remain 100% intellectual property of its operator?
Further, assuming that we have a system that has ingested OSM by deep
learning and we say that this means its internal database is ODbL, what
would this mean for the output later produced by the same machine?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik R
the group/company members and other members difficult, and good
communication is a cornerstone of every successful organised editing
activity.
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
ou use is
less than 100 - an crucially this could be after the trivial alterations
you mention - then the extract you are making is considered not to be
substantial (see
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline)
and therefore does not have to be und
l, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new
database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have
been made without OSM.
Do you disagree?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
ld they possibly be used to reassemble
OSM).
I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the
ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database"
definition.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail fred
Hi,
On 14.12.19 06:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Can you point me to legal definition
> of "substantial part"?
There is none, hence:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@rem
t covered either by the ODbL
Assuming that the data is covered by ODbL, then "These rights explicitly
include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour."
(section 3.0)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N4
-comments?uid=1836535&commented
is another site that has all your writing nicely listed.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
good any time ;)
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
For slippy
map displays this would probably require an extra server of sorts that
returns a nice concatenated attribution string for any area. That
server could be populated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] clients as they have the data
anyway,
or it could load stuff from OSMXapi.
For the reasons given above
rity of OSM contributers
thinks that the copyleft aspect is important, then I'd not have this
discussion. It is just that it seems to me that there are very few
people who hold up the CC banner. And most of these, after some
thinking, silently retract their banner when I ask them how they'
ween giving something away with no conditions
attached, and "giving away" stuff with lots of rules (I give you
this but you must promise to ... and otherwise I won't give you
anything). The latter, to me, is really not "free" in any meaningful
way.
I have said th
Hi,
Sloppiness, again:
> the Foundation should poll the members instead of going to great
> lengths to find out what's best for the members without talking to
> them.
I meant "contributors", not "members".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PRO
being imposed.
Wrong, a copyleft license IS a restriction.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
stupid to decide for themselves whether they want to use the "free"
data or the "non-free" competition product any less ideological?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
__
Would that mean that if our license was a contract and somebody
violated it, he would have to pay us damages, which I (perhaps
naively) would interpret as "the amount of money we lost due to his
infringement", i.e. zero dollars?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAI
lue is available for all, PD allows it to be restricted
> for others.
The end user is still free in his choice whether to use the PD or the
restricted variant. You base your thinking on the assumption that the
user will make the "wrong" choice, and thus you don't want to o
" in the property
editor to a certain value, and you are recorded as having changed
all of the selected objects even if only some of them changed).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
__
rations on the subject are documented somewhere
then just point me to that and I'll read up on the arguments.)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
lega
le to make the switch and I want the switch to also affect
the data they collected before they decided to PD it.
If, ultimately, one could query the same OSM database with an added
"license=pd" and would only get the unrestricted subset, I would be
a very happy man.
Bye
Frederik
-
bly no legal handle for them to enforce
it?
I would hope that this is made clear to everyone. People still seem to
assume that we could go after violators with "lawsuits" but this seems
rather naive to me now.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°
e the database of that
tainted data now than in two years' time.
It is not too late to be honest to these people and say: Look, we've
given you the illusion of having legal clout in the matter, we've
given you the illusion of you havi
Hi,
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:24AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Let us drop all this nonsense and concentrate on drawing up the moral
>> guidelines - saying what we consider ok and what not - instead of
>> fantasizing about having legal powers to enforce anything.
>
tes our
contract are rather slim indeed. In fact, I am close to accuse anyone
presenting this as a working way to enforce the license ("well where
there's no database law the license works as a contract, yippie,
problem solved!") of demagogy, or at least spreading misinformati
Hi,
> There are negative sides to a copyright assignment. A) We probably
> wouldn't get one from e.g. AND or MASSGIS (although I'm speculating). B)
> It would mean the scenario I mentioned to Frederik, where a commercial
> company could sue a license violator, couldn't happen, because they
> w
or, should be asked to make a decision
based on a FUD-like claim.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
ouldn't support PD and (b) they
would support ODC. If any of these two, or both of them, are missing,
then AND cannot be used as an argument in the discussion.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
It doesn't help to pick
individual bits of our current licensing and claim that they are
important pillars of the project and have been chosen after long
and thorough consideration. This is the first time we actually have a
community process going where we try to find the license that serves
us best.
PL/SA style license is vastly greater than the number of projects
moving the other way round, simply because you don't have to ask your
contributors in the first case while you have to in the other case.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°2
efuse to provide it under another
license!). We also need to know who would refuse to re-license under
PD if the whole project went that way, and we will have to assess what
amount of data would be affected either way.
I fear that this cannot be achieved by the Wiki and mailing lists
alone.
Bye
Fr
ten had the
argument that even if your license doesn't hold any legal water, it is
still a good declaration of intent, and a basis to "name and shame"
violators. What's your take on this? Is this not a working deterrent
at least for those who have a public standing to lose?
Bye
o use our
work" - yes, sure, I've invested a hell of a lot of work and now I
want as many users as possible.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal
quot;
I don't think it is fair to dismiss John's statement the way you do.
And I fail to see why the amount of money the CC may or may not have
has anything to do with it.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
diction; John says in another paragraph that our
license affects those who want to play by the rules (however
enforceable they may be), it just doesn't affect the bad guys. So, the
institutions you speak of are the good guys who do not want to be seen
breaching our rules.
Bye
Frederik
--
Fr
Hi,
> It was a statement of fact, not a guideline or an endorsement. I just
> said I knew of some, I didn't say that I was responsible for them.
Then surely you'll post a list of those you know of so that they can be
fixed?
Incidentally, how many Easter Eggs am I permitted to introduce before
Hi,
> We do have genuine deliberate errors in the database, not through any
> devious wish to conceal something but rather because we can't map it
> accurately. A simple example here:
No problem with that. If 80n has been referring to situations where
something could not be accurately mapped due
Hi,
> Personally, I do not support the practice of deliberately inserting
> errors into our database.
>
> Think of it more as "watermarking"
Watermarking as part of a control and enforcement structure? Not my
style. Next thing you tell me is that you can download our data but you
only
w a number of items that
have been copied thusly), then I'll be told in no uncertain terms to
stop that. I would expect the same attitude towards the insertion of
easter eggs.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi,
> It's not just about the
> uses you envision today. It's about 10 years down the line, 20 years
> down the line. Strategies built on strong copyrights and IPRs have a
> long lifetime, and a lot of unintended consequences.
Hm. Suppose we used a restrictive copyleft license lice the ODL, b
y". Share-Alike is about control and compliance,
not about freedom and liberty.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
r side. Their
situation is entirely different from ours. They're not building a free
world map. We do. They're not fighting our battle in court. And if
they were, then I am sure I wouldn't be the only one to feel that
they've landed on the wrong side somehow.
Bye
Frederik
--
hes te contract and publishes the data, then
whatever you gave him is up for grabs by anyone as they're not party
to the contract.
This is not something I need a lawyer to say for me, or am I
overlooking some complexity here?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On 20.02.2008, at 20:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hm. Suppose we used a restrictive copyleft license lice the ODL,
> but at
> the same time said that 12 months after being last edited, we release
> stuff into the public domain.
[...]
> Maybe we can find a compromise along t
Now since we assume A to be evil, A will certainly publish the data
without any notice whatsoever about a contract that you are supposed
to enter by browsing. The result is that B who browses A's offerings
can never ever become party to a contract he doesn't know anything
about.
By
hreat to our project or the freedom
of our current data be constructed from that?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
osm? Because the current
one has none.
> [1] even more theoretical aside: maybe we should dual-license to also
> say "we'll sell you full non-exclusive rights to planet.osm for £5,000
> a node" ;)
I have a feeling that Rob can't be bought.
B
eone to use in a proprietary product.
No, because coypright applies to the Linux kernel, and the US law
does recognize that very well. The problem arises only with stuff
that is not copyrightable, such as factual data, onto which you try
to add restrictions.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
eir own proprietary dataset today? Would this put our project in
danger somehow?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.open
users to pay, but instead making sure that the project cannot
be "captured" by evil guys.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
t?
And would the same problems that we're talking about for non-European
jurisdictions then apply here as well (i.e. I extract the data and
breach the contract, publish it, another guy uses it)?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.
g as I extract non-significant amounts, the data would
essentially be PD?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstre
re to win. I'd just quietly grumble and
point out my ethical superiority.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
> there is, in my opinion, nothing ethically
> wrong with putting a value on intellectual work and demanding
> compensation (money, attribution, sex, ...) for it.
Entirely new licensing options come to mind!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00
t
they want. Only if they create something based on OSM data and
PUBLISH it, then the product must be licensed CC-BY-SA.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing l
e than osm.org (e.g. informationfreeway,
cyclemap, ...) whom you cannot force to use your technical solution?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openst
ou are
unhappy with the attribution as given on that page, please hit the
'Edit' button and change it to suit your needs" would be tres cool
indeed ;-)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
attribution (where we ask them if *this* particular wording
is ok for them) on a wiki page which they will associate with
"volatile content" may sound a bit strange. It would, at the least,
require a few words of explaining it to them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## e
o sign up for PD because this
makes sure that their work is not lost to the project. Sounds easiest
to me. Those who don't do that will be included in the general license
change E-Mail process later.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail
about the license project, and to whom
does it appear so?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
ated/printed/... *now* will forever be CC-BY-SA
2.0 and not some kind of new license. And I *think* that CC-BY-SA
postulates that you actually name the license and not only say "see my
page at ".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eM
s CC-BY-SA derived work?
Maybe quite academic, that one. But the previous one about the guy
writing invoices was real.
Bye
Frederik
(PS: Could we please simply go PD because then I wouldn't have to
waste anyone's time with questions like this...?)
nsellors etc.).
Hm, maybe the ODL isn't so bad after all. Is it too early for me to
make a German translation for the folks on talk-de?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
specify the kind of attribution *he*
wants.
I'm not saying this is good, or your idea is bad, I'm just saying I
think it is unworkable with the current license.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
ata on it, thus avoiding importing it to
OSM; *maybe* it would try to put only stuff on the tiles where OSM
hasn't got its own data so this would make an nice extension to OSM
without license problems. But all this is very vague at the moment.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [E
icly say "OSM uses Google data".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
nsor of OSM data is not
the foundation, but you and me and the other mappers, each of whom
might have a different idea.
And with these words I hand over to Richard F who will tell you how
all this is hoped to improve in the future :-)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
ould at least gain a bit more
visibility, and if we come to a point where 80% of our data is
contributed by PD sources then claims like a pub derived from Copyleft
data will perhaps lose some of their theeth.
Thinking of it, with the TIGER data in our belly, we may already be at
80% PD globally. But TIGER doesn't have pubs.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
egal risk is with the people using the data - it takes only one
of 35,000 (and rising) OSM contributors to start a lawsuit, and no
license will ever be so watertight that nobody can feel mistreated.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E00
ve it promised in writing), then
that might actually ease some doubts.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
g.
Is it relevant to us?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
have
been wholly different.
But that's pure speculation - as is the idea that no community has
formed because it was PD rather than copyleft.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
asking for help? That would
seem counter-intuitive to me but I'm really unwilling to discuss stuff
that is hypothetical on so many levels - it doesn't help.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
atabase and then give some examples of
the elements in the database that are likely to be factual and
excluded from the scope of copyright and the Creative Commons license.
(unqoute)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
Mika,
first of all, from a license viewpoint it doesn't matter what you
use the data for (whether you do routing on it or just display it or
whatever). It also doesn't matter what your personal views on the matter
are. You say that you wouldn't like it if someone sold OSM data, but in
fact
Hi,
>> For example, imagine you would allow your users to save the flightpath in a
>> file and later generate a film sequence that re-plays the in-flight view,
>> and save that as a movie file. That movie file would contain pictures of
>> aeronautical data and OSM data
[...]
> You're wrong.
401 - 500 of 684 matches
Mail list logo
