Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets

copyrighted), so people know that someone has visited the area and mapped it in detail. If there is no blank space, it will probably attract less mappers. Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

the latter doesn't exist). There is fear of the OSMF making a bad decision, and that's entirely justified if you consider the refusal to provide *any* meaningful indication of how that decision will look like. Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list

[OSM-legal-talk] We Are Changing The License missing relevant information

of users unfamiliar with the license change. The page is part of the OSMF wiki, so I'm unable to update it. Can someone please add that information? Oh ... and while you are at it, why not update the (TODO: add more on what this means) section, too? Thanks, Tobias Knerr

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

Anthony wrote: Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing terms. It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions of the Contributor Terms so far: You insist on the idea of individual data

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

John Smith wrote: On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless. This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is owned by people isn't

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file

to publish the temporary database that the 3D renderer created in the process. He will not even understand what he needs to do, and if he did, he'd have a hard time uploading that x00 MB binary blob to gnome-look.org alongside with his desktop background. And nobody would want it anyway! -- Tobias Knerr

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

Rob Myers wrote: On 01/07/11 09:43, Tobias Knerr wrote: The only motivation for data SA I can somewhat understand is to open up data that can be contributed back to OSM. Sharealike is meant to guarantee that the individual users of the produced work have the same freedom to work

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

without deleting data. -- Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

it strictly needs to be, which encourages people to use OSM in creative, productive and unexpected ways. Continued publication of the OSM database under CC-BY-SA will therefore help us fulfil our project's mission, and can be implemented without disruption of the ongoing licensing process. -- Tobias

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

for the good guys, too. -- Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

- and an ODbL-only solution would involve that - is something that I can neither truly understand nor support. -- Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

this, I was a bit confused about your position before. -- Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia

On 21.07.2012 20:10, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 21.07.2012 18:19, Adrian Frith wrote: Do we really have to include the full notice Contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL) in the caption of every use of an OSM-derived map in a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible

On 27.07.2012 23:52, Frederik Ramm wrote: On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:33:59 +0200 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com 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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright and license page, how to do the details

On 28.10.2012 15:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: To whom applies the requirement to credit in the corner of the map, just to users of the datatiles or to all users of OSM data presenting it in some form of browsable electronic map? Where does this requirement come from? Or am I misinterpreting

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

On 30.10.2012 13:30, Michael Collinson wrote: I propose that we base a re-write on: *OpenStreetMap considers **Open Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (c) statement on openstreetmap.org slippy map?

On 17.01.2013 08:56, Jeff Meyer wrote: If we require others to put (c) OpenStreetMap contributors on their tiles [...] We don't. Like ourselves, they can also put it elsewhere, as long as it's findable. For example behind a link labelled Copyright and License, or an about box in an app. At

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

On 28.02.2013 01:17, Frederik Ramm wrote: Just to make this one point clear: What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy. This is not really true. At the core of the ODbL is the idea that produced works and derivative databases should be treated differently, and that

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Place name translations

On 16.06.2013 12:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 16/giu/2013, at 12:14, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com Based on what I've seen, what they are copying from Wikipedia are data and facts. In the US, facts are not copyrightable as facts do not originate from creative authorship and there

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

On 28.04.2014 23:34, Kai Krueger wrote: I would say we can all agree on that for the majority of the community giving data back when you fix things is the spirit of the share-a-like license of OSM. Even as a supporter of more liberal licensing, this is a spirit I could pretty much get behind.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

On 30.04.2014 19:37, Rob Myers wrote: On 30/04/14 03:18 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Travel Channel + OSM

On 25.02.2015 09:51, Simon Poole wrote: http://osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#How_should_I_attribute_you.3F covers video, as outlined there they don't have to show attribution on screen the whole time, doing something when a/the map is first shown would likely be enough. Who is behind these

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Use of data from the Malaysian government Open Data portal

Hello, On 2016-03-07, Jangan Kacau wrote: > Recently, the data portal has released a list of route reference > numbers, which can be accessed from the link: > http://data.gov.my/view.php?view=921 > and I would like to use it to update OSM. Section 3 could

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"

On 17.04.20 11:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "© > OpenStreetMap" Yes, crediting © OpenStreetMap with the appropriate link would be a good solution. Aside from being more concise, it's a lot less awkward in a non-English or