At 12:48 PM 3/18/2008, 80n wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Sent: 18 March 2008 10:54 AM
To: mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.orglegal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk]
Hi Elliot,
For me, yes and yes but. I mapped most of central Sydney myself
originally and am delighted. Your use clearly indicates two separate
layers which the community says is OK, you don't need to share alike
the 3D model ... though perhaps you can consider it? As for the
credits,
I have been away from the grand fray for several weeks due to
personal matters and have been catching up with threads on this
list. One question, I think from Liz, was who decided to remove
data. That got me thinking as there was never any explicit decision
point. Therefore I have a question
At 01:14 13/08/2010, Liz wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal
review from OSMF's lawyers...
Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more
This is a general question for discussion from the License Working
Group. I may also ask on the main list as the constituency is different.
There are now 1 to 2 reports every month of folks violating OSM's
license by using OSM's data or maps without any or without adequate
CC-BY-SA
On 28/03/2011 00:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Sorry that I come quite late with this, it might be too late, and it
was bothering me occasionally already for some months: if we really
decided in the future to change the license, isn't 3 weeks a little
short for such an important issue? I am
Hi Eldad,
This link http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License may also help with
general information. We are evolving it to help folks such as yourself,
so if there is anything unclear or confusing, please do no hesitate to
email me.
Mike
On 16/04/2011 15:55, Simon Biber wrote:
Hi Eldad,
Hi Jukka,
Yes, it is still in use and we read everything and we we do try to
respond. Have we missed something?
Mike
License Working Group
On 04/06/2011 06:57, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Hi,
The page
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups#Licensing_Working_Group
suggests that the
For me as a personal contributor, it looks great as is. It goes out with
every extraction(?). You are making attribution credit reasonable to
the medium (CC-BY-SA and CC-BY). You are crediting OpenStreetMap and
properly identifying the CC-BY-SA license. You also have a link to
I am also very hesitant to have a specific date now and basically
support Kai's concept. Mostly the date thing is caution, I would like to
move to Phase 4 as soon as possible but think we can then take our time
getting as much ODbL coverage as possible. It is also disparate
situations. At one
+1 Much appreciated, both the statement itself and Ben's efforts to get it.
Mike
On 15/06/2011 03:36, Richard Weait wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Lastben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
Hi all
As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap
regarding
Hi Simon,
Basically no. Our stance is that the only copy of their data that is
accessible is what they contributed only under CC-BY-SA in a database
which is published CC-BY-SA. Whilst that stance may be arguable, the
number of contributors is small, (3?), there is still a paradox between
Hi Chris,
Thank you for info, I can follow it up now.
Thanks also for the nice feedback!
Mike
LWG
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our
contributor terms [1] and summary [2] .
Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under
CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, my initial thought it that it is more practical
to (also) offer them under a license that
, and I am looking only at a small part of Ulf's
life, but to me these two things are part of his lasting legacy.
To a decent and intelligent guy.
Mike
Michael Collinson
http://www.ndr.de/regional/schleswig-holstein/trittau115.html
http://www.ln-online.de/lokales/stormarn/3339992/die-polizei
On 13/02/2012 12:53, Simon Poole wrote:
Am 13.02.2012 12:33, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
This can be read - as Simon seems to do it - to mean the CTs
guarantee that required attribution will survive any future licence
changes, but I think he's on thin ice there; in my reading, the CTs
promise
I am trying to find a solution that will allow the UMP project in Poland
to continue using OSM data and therefore reciprocally allow OSM to keep
a large amount of data that went into making the initial road map of
Poland and which is still there. The UMP project collects road routes
within
On 20/04/2012 13:23, Jonas Häggqvist wrote:
[preamble cut]
Hi,
I wonder about these two requirements in the license[1], and whether
or not they could present a problem:
-
- sikrer, at udnyttelsen af materialet sker på en
On 30/04/2012 17:38, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Can someone please confirm that I am able to make use of the Natural
England data released under the Open Government Licence. I was under
the impression that this licence is compatible with OSMs CTs and ODBL
licence, however the
Thanks Paul, this is good news. These kinds of license are appearing in
a number of countries and are a great way of providing open geodata by
governmental organisations.
One small correction, but a positive one: The license is based on the
pure UK Open Government License [1] rather than
Hi Pekka,
Thanks for taking this on. I have put some comments in-line. The usual
caveat, IANAL!
Dear Friends,
This legal-lists seem to be quite quiet. So, maybe you all have plenty
of time to discuss about National Land Survey of Finland (NLSF)
license vs. OSM licenses.
As you may know,
On 20/09/2012 16:32, Pieren wrote:
Hi legal-list,
I would like to point out an error in your French translation of the CT:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR
compared to its original
(http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms).
Section 3. says
On 20/09/2012 07:32, Mike Dupont wrote:
Hi there,
I have a question about imports and the ODBl,
I see that some sources have decided to dual license the data
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
But how can some third parties data be compatible when the CT says it
can change
On 20/09/2012 09:13, Stephan Knauss wrote:
On 20.09.2012 07:32, Mike Dupont wrote:
How can a contributor import any data and keep the data open to
license change? How can you keep any imports at all from people who
have not agreed to the CT directly?
I agree with you in this point.
If we
Hi Bekim,
If nobody else gives you feedback I will do so next week. I am away at the
moment.
Regards,
Michael Collinson
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:11, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Mike,
Hopefully someone will send some feedback.
Best,
Bekim
On Thu, Sep 20
Hi Igor,
I wonder if this resource helps with your question?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
(a work in progress)
Mike
On 22/10/2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks
source, then
please say so. But please treat all the players the same: Apple, esri,
Google and one-man-band companies.
Best regards,
Igor
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Hi Igor,
I wonder if this resource helps with your
On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote:
(After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and
others.)
[snip]
One thing that's confusing me, is that
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license
applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that
On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote:
(After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and
others.)
On 22/10/12 23:13, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net:
weeks. In the UK, example projects might be freeing up postcodes or
public right of way route definitions. Do you have important issues in
your country? Are you an organisation that is finding OSM data difficult
to use for legal reasons?
Mike
Michael Collinson
Chair, License Working Group
Simon,
Oliver, Dermot and I have give a finally look over the document and are
happy to now send it to the board as our formal proposal. However, as
Chair I would really prefer a formal quorate, 4, for such things and ask
you to indicate yes or no by email before I send it.
Hi all,
There has been community discussion about refining the Legal FAQ on the
issue of what is reasonable attribution for certain specific media
cases. I have created a Community Guideline wiki page [1]. This is not
about being legal but what you personally think is reasonable for what
you
2003.
Please note that these are layman's opinions. I am not a lawyer and
neither I nor the LWG can offer any formal legal opinion.
Mike
Michael Collinson
[1]
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/1/
___
legal
Thanks. I have now written to their contact email address asking them
to comply with our license or remove the data. I will report back on
what transpires.
Mike
Michael Collinson
License Working Group
On 15/09/2013 16:54, Walter Nordmann wrote:
got some:
New from 18. August 2013:
http
I think the License Working Group would echo exactly what Jonathan says.
While it does not solve the problem of being able to map where there are
no mappers, may I also seize the opportunity to promote John McKerrell's
excellent OpenStreetView? It is a great under-exploited tool!
of roads, railways
etc across boundaries without triggering share-alike? There seems to be
no public value(?). See wiki page for more discussion.
Mike
Michael Collinson
License Working Group
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Luis,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, I hope you don't mind
that I've referenced the mail link on the page for resource reading!
On 30/04/2014 00:10, Luis Villa wrote:
I think it is pretty clear that this rule is only for OSM/ODBL, but it
wouldn't hurt to make that more
On 28/04/2014 23:27, Mikel wrote:
Further I note there was 0 (zero) response to the proposed updated community
guidelines that
go a long way in clarifying a number of the grey areas, indicating that the
whole upset is not
about fixing real issues.
Simon, first i've heard about this. Can you
I've renamed the subject because it has gone way off topic, but I wanted
to come back on Tobias' comment because it struck a chord and I would
like to share a personal research topic. I am curious to evolve the idea
further to see if there is any positive value.
Open data is a different
This is a pure CC question.
An organisation is making a short film/video which will be released
CC-BY. They want to show (fleetingly) OSM map tiles ... which are
CC-BY-SA- 2.0. Can they do that?
[And if anyone in the UK wants to help them by creating tiles from
scratch under a CC-BY
Thanks to all have responded specifically or generally on our community
guidelines draft. I have been able to make a number of small changes
which tighten and clarify without changing intent.
I have made one large edit by replacing my original horizontal cuts text
with some that I believe is
This comes to me via Simon Poole, so the OSMF board is aware.
http://apb.directionsmag.com/entry/google-patent-updating-map-data-using-satellite-imagery/402398?utm_source=dlvr.itutm_medium=tumblr
The License Working Group is undermanned and has only met twice this
year, most recently on 28th October. [1]
This is due in great part to my lack of time, enthusiasm and attention
in calling meetings. I am therefore stepping down as below and welcome
volunteers to join as full members and
, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson
m...@ayeltd.biz mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome
associate members who can help us occassionally or want to
work on a specific topic that fires you up. This involves
44 matches
Mail list logo
