Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:

25, Markus marku...@bigpond.com wrote: Why couldn't this be added to CT Section 3 saying. If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may then not be compatible will need to be removed. Would this then make cc-by existing data compatible with the new licence? I

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give OSMF rights that you don't possess. CC-BY-SA does not grant you a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright and so

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license

Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 September 2010 13:22, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: To clarify: the CT's as the currently stand: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms require (per clause 4) OSMF to attribute on request. There is no mechanism

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license

Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: My suggestion - which I believe has been/is being chewed over by the LWG - is that the CT's make an alternative arrangement for contributors who want to contribute material that is licensed under some other licence. The way in which clause 2 works gives

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license

Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: My specific point was that *if* you want the CT's to be permissive about importation, then it is fairer on contributors and clearer to provide an express list of compatible licenses - to avoid contributors having to make the judgment themselves. I think

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 4 January 2011 23:33, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to delete any OS OpenData-derived content first. However, is there any guarantee that OSMF will remove such data first

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4

On 13 April 2011 23:06, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: Clause 2 is a grant for certain rights. From previous discussion here, can I assume that I can agree if I'm not the copyright holder, and that I only grant the rights I can under the licence I received the data under? That depends

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Acceptable licences and splitting account edits

On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: With the upcoming requirement to accept/decline the contributor terms, I thought it was about time to figure out whether and how I can agree to them. I've had a look around but can't see any FAQs for the contributor terms,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4

On 14 April 2011 09:34, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: Strictly speaking, you can make use of them, but contributors are (i) in breach of contract in contributing that material and (ii) may (in some circumstances) infringe copyright by authorising OSMF to do acts which are infringements

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey

On 16 June 2011 07:58, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: The right question - when considering deletions - is, can the OSMF use this dataset as part of the OSM. That is a question of compatibility between the original licence (in this case the OS Opendata licence) and the way in which OSMF

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey

On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Robert Whittaker wrote: A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free and Open license without the need for further checks. No, that hasn't been the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 10:22, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: OK. So what I mean by some of the questions don't make sense is exactly this. I'm afraid you and lots of others who ask questions use a lot of short-hand (lawyers sometimes do this too). The problem is then I don't know what

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 19 June 2011 11:21, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics, I'm

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] using osm data and other sources in a project

On 9 August 2011 03:17, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: I have a mapping project for an organization involved in conservation and natural resources management.  We are planning to create an internal/local webmapping application to help the organization in monitoring several

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Distribution of OSM and non OSM data together

2011/10/10 Carlos Dávila cdavi...@orangecorreo.es: I would like to know if it would be possible with the new license to distribute maps which combine OSM data and other data licensed under a more restrictive license (basically non commercial use permitted). AFAIK it is not possible with the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if  these tags are not present any more in the current version Are you sure that this is a good idea?

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is an object created by a non-agreer always tainted, even if all info has been deleted/changed by agreers?

On 2 February 2012 13:43, Woll Newall w...@2-islands.com wrote: What is the consensus on the legal status of an object that has been created by a non-agreer, but all of the nodes and all of the tags have been deleted/changed by agreers? i.e.: 1) Non-agreer creates a way with tags 'name=A'

[OSM-legal-talk] Attributing Sources used in OSM

I've just been given permission to use some UK Local Government data relating to Public Footpaths and other Rights of Way in OpenStreetMap, under the terms of the Open Government License (OGL) [1]. In return the County Council is asking for a standard attribution based on the example given in the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attributing Sources used in OSM

://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright so that it also directs users to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors ? Thanks, Robert. On 9 May 2012 09:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: I've just been given permission to use some UK Local Government data relating to Public

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council

On 11 June 2012 18:12, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: That is not true. LWG did not get 'specific agreement' from OS. We are simply using OS OpenData in compliance with the OS OpenData licence and OS confirmed: The Ordnance Survey has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-GB] Response from Hampshire County Council

On 11 June 2012 13:28, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to use this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense of the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this? I'd say

[OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

I have a question concerning the ability of someone creating produced works from an ODbL-licensed database to license that produced work for use by others. Strictly speaking it's a question about the ODbL, rather that OSM, but since it will have a significant effect on OSM users, I thought I would

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

On 22 October 2012 10:44, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] tesco store location data

On 5 November 2012 17:56, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Chris Hill wrote: So the answer, as always with this sort of question, is no we cannot use that data without written permission of the copyright holder to use this data in OSM for any purpose. I don't think that is likely

[OSM-legal-talk] Content Licence for OSM Data

My understanding of the ODbL is that it covers an overall database, but not individual contents within it. So in order to use an ODbL database you also need a license (or other permission) to use the contents. Conversely, when offering a database to others under the ODbL, if you actually want them

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Current status on UK Council footpath data

On 6 June 2013 08:11, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? It will depend what data you are referring to. But the general rule will apply: you can only use data/information that is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL

On 7 June 2013 01:56, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: With two State of the Map conferences coming up now and plenty of opportunities for face time, I'd like to restart our conversation around clarifying the ODbL's implications for geocoding and get to a result. Over here at MapBox we're

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL

On 13 June 2013 14:58, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: Manual geocoding A person using an OSM map to find the latitude and longitude coordinates associated with a point or an area, normally by clicking, drawing or similarly marking where that point or area is on a map. As an example, the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-GB] Using store locator as source

On 17 September 2013 08:38, OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com wrote: However, basic postcode centre locations are part of the OS OpenData releases. Unfortunately, CodePoint Open is the one dataset in the OS OpenData collection that hasn't been cleared for use in OSM. See

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing advice for a potential data source?

On 21 January 2014 18:18, Adam Williamson ad...@happyassassin.net wrote: Hi, folks! I'm a new OSM contributor in Vancouver, BC, Canada. I'm doing some manual, on-the-ground, local knowledge mapping, but I'm also looking for importable sources of important data types we're currently missing

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OpenData attributes from closed vector data

On 7 March 2014 22:40, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: I have been provided (i) original vector data and (ii) a printed map leaflet both of which include attribute data about roads - for example, whether the road is lit. The owner of the attribute data (whether the road is lit)

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines - Horizontal Cuts better text

On 21 May 2014 15:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I like the message but I am not sure if it really works, license-wise. Suppose I have my own data set with restaurant POIs, A. Now I take an OSM database with restaurant POIs, B. Now I compute the difference, B-A - all

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

On 11 July 2014 03:52, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding. Please review: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline The whole point of the share-alike aspect of our licence is to stop

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] YouTube videos

On 8 August 2014 09:48, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: CC-BY is not per se compatible. We need (and I believe this is still the case with 4.0) explicit acknowledgement that the way that we provide attribution is OK and that we do not provide downstream attribution for individual sources.

[OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

The ODbL that we now use for OSM data technically only applies to the database, and not to individual contents contained within it. For that, the ODbL says you need a separate licence [1]. I was under the impression that for OSM's data this licence was the ODC's Database Contents Licence (DbCL)

[OSM-legal-talk] Addresses from Land Registry Price Paid Data

As you may know, the UK's Land Registry makes available historical Price Paid data for residential property sales, licensed under the Open Government Licence (OGL). Along with the prices paid, this data also includes full addresses and postcodes for the properties. OGL-licensed data is regarded

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Addresses from Land Registry Price Paid Data

On 1 December 2014 at 21:51, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 01.12.2014 15:08, schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists): This also raises the question of whether there are any other OGL-licensed datasets out there that have been used in OSM, but which contain undocumented third-party IP

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

On 11 December 2015 at 21:04, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Talking with their legal people it was, or at least as far as I > understood them, their view that the the ODbL style of attribution > (where downstream don't need to provide attribution for any > incorporated or

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FYI Collective Database Guideline

On 9 June 2016 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> The LWG has just forwarded the text of >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collective_Database_Guideline to >> the OSMF board for approval and publishing as definite

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

On 18 January 2016 at 10:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review > and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the > compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT: >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] is legal-talk@openstreetmap.org searchable?

On 18 August 2016 at 21:12, Frederik Ramm wrote: > use your favourite search engine with something like > "site:lists.openstreetmap.org legal-talk mykeyword". Or better still "site:lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/ mykeyword", which works on at least Google.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

On 9 September 2016 at 18:19, Luis Villa wrote: > Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the > "third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license" > language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is implicit in > all

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 21:18, tomoya muramoto wrote: > I ask a simple question. May I copy the information of the TESCO Boston > Superstore to OSM? > https://www.tesco.com/store-locator/uk/?bid=2108 > > This website contains information such as > - addr=* > - phone=* > - opening_hours=* > -

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:41 Kathleen Lu via legal-talk, < legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data. > There are two reasons. > I would argue that the dataset here does include some OSM data, as it includes (albeit limited)