Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is listing at Contributors page qualifying as waiver for CC BY 4.0?

Some here would say that when the publisher indicates their interpretation of the license then we can rely on that instead going with our interpretation of the license, but I am not a lawyer. If they can sign the LWG waiver it makes things a lot easier, but it's not the only option. On Fri, 23

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] ACT CC BY waiver

Thanks for your thoughts Simon. On Tue, 30 May 2017, at 06:00 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > Andrew, pls jog my memory, is the ACT data available on CC BY 4.0 terms or are the terms based on a earlier version? It's CC BY 4.0 -> http://www.actmapi.act.gov.au/terms.html > The problem with point 2

[OSM-legal-talk] ACT CC BY waiver

I contacted the ACT Government to see if they could complete the CC BY waiver form as provided at https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/. We have previous correspondence at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/Australian_Capital_Territory from which the local

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

On 8 July 2016 at 23:47, Simon Poole wrote: > Both the Horizontal Layer and the Collective Database guidelines address > a specific de-duplication issue (in respect to the above use case): if > you take your proprietary dataset and remove all POIs from the OSM > dataset that

[OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together, the results must be shared under the ODBL. From my investigation it appears that the MAPS.ME app [2] is combining OSM hotels with non-OSM hotels. https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-1.png is a screenshot from the app. Hotel A

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

Sorry my mistake. Thanks for picking up on that. On 24/12/2015 9:01 pm, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > > I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC > > BY is becoming the

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

On 22 December 2015 at 03:48, Tom Lee wrote: > Point 1 is simple agreement. > > Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every > possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as unlikely > as any). > > Point 3 is the least appealing, but

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

LPI data into OSM and then filtered the planet extract or API to only return LPI data, they would need to provide LPI attribution as per their request and not just attribute this as OSM. On 13 December 2015 at 21:57, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 December 2015 at

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

On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of > attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it > would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to

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

On 12 December 2015 at 04:11, Tom Lee wrote: > Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as: > > - questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the > impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution > requirements in a geo context

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing a combined OSM adapted and CC-BY derived work

attribution and dual licensing of my new work. If it's okay, then this opens up a problem that my changes can't be incorporated into OSM which defeats the whole point of the copyleft OSM licence? On 23/11/2015 9:33 pm, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > > > Am 23.11.201

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing a combined OSM adapted and CC-BY derived work

On 23 November 2015 at 13:27, Paul Norman wrote: > CC BY 3.0 doesn't allow you to do this, as it requires you to impose > conditions not present in the ODbL. When I publish my new work, I add all the required attributions and statements required by the CC-BY 3.0 license (in

[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing a combined OSM adapted and CC-BY derived work

I consume OSM data, adapt it for my needs by adjusting OSM geometries to match CC-BY licensed aerial imagery, and then publish the result publicly. To comply with the OSM data's ODBL license, my published results contain a notice that it is "based on data (c) OpenStreetMap Contributors under the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing a combined OSM adapted and CC-BY derived work

On 23 November 2015 at 13:06, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: > To comply with the OSM data's ODBL license, my published results > contain a notice that it is "based on data (c) OpenStreetMap > Contributors under the Open Database License > http://www.open

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

> Thanks, Jukka. I suspect that "permission" isn't actually valid, as it > seems to extend from data.gov.au (Federal government) but most of the > datasets there are state or territory (eg, the VicMap Rivers dataset), and > are published on the relevant state/territory data portals

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

On 31 August 2015 at 12:05, Andrew Turner ajtur...@highearthorbit.com wrote: So a simpler route here would be to suggest upgrading to use CC-By 4.0? Or is Paul stating there is no known version of Creative Commons that is acceptable to OSM except the completely unencumbered CC0? See

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What extra permissions are needed to include CC-BY data in OSM

Just found http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission it has hints about what extra permissions we require. On 5 May 2015 at 19:27, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: I'm bringing up a conversation from talk-au pertaining to what additional permissions we need from

[OSM-legal-talk] What extra permissions are needed to include CC-BY data in OSM

I'm bringing up a conversation from talk-au pertaining to what additional permissions we need from content owners in order to include or use as a source to derive further information from their CC-BY licensed data in OSM. Any advice is very much appreciated. On 16 April 2015 at 15:26, Paul

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Which non-ODBL compliant source would this be, if I may ask? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7958977 where attribution=Based on Mosman Council data. It was CC-BY-SA. ...I also am not confident my nearmap derived

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com 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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf which we can't verify as authentic.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager Oh, yes. That's

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons

Thanks for posting this Kai. Those comments from Creative Commons look promising. On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to link to a recent interesting article on the OSM licensing change on LWN (Linux Weekly News) as I haven't seen it be mentioned

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 12/21/10 11:51, Andrew Harvey wrote: I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled with data which conflicts

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: David ( some others), David Groom wrote: I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery to create derived works, all the only answer is we have it. As I've said before if its there please

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Unsetting CT flag

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: What? Oh, fuck. That's really fucking bad. So we have broken CTs, and absolutely no way to avoid them. Who the fuck came up with that fucking stupid policy? With the greatest respect for the LWG, who are acting in good

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?

I feel that it is not safe at this point. I have raised my concerns in this thread http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005299.html On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Manuel Reimer manuel.s...@nurfuerspam.de wrote: Hello, is it secure to use Bing? Any license risks?

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Then you must have the same objection to tracing from Yahoo's imagery. Unlike Bing, there is no specific agreement between Yahoo and OSM. Yahoo only agreed that the act of tracing from the satellite imagery that they

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog post going up soon on the same topic.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Andrew Harvey wrote: I am yet to see a license. http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details has a set of terms of use embedded in the post specifically for OSM. It's a Scribd document and therefore requires

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:34 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Whereabouts is the prior written consent from Microsoft which would enable us to trace and thus create derivative works? David [1]  

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Bing - Terms of Use

Just to clarify is this http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document which contains the license grant? Could some please point me to the section which says derived information shall have no restriction on its use? ___ legal-talk mailing

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Sebastian Klein basti...@googlemail.com wrote: We have a ToU agreement specially designed for osm (Bing Maps Imagery Service Editor Application API's Terms of Use [1]) so do we even need to consider the general terms of use? They are both somewhat similar,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:01 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Which is exactly the point, unless ODBL data can be imported (or traced or ) it makes little difference to me what license they are using, it certainly doesn't prove that it is more useful in a court of law that

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

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: The current contributor terms for new accounts require you grant a licence to the OSMF to do 'any act that is restricted by copyright', subject to section 3 which says that OSMF will distribute under CC-BY-SA, ODbL/DbCL, or

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: My statistics are of course flawed - they do not capture objects individually tagged source=nearmap rather than on the changeset, and if an object has been modified more than once in a nearmap changeset, it has been