Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License clarification

On 2018-06-07 12:19 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: The idea that you can produce a data set using both OSM and non-OSM data in a meaningful way without there being either a collective or a derivative database seems fundamentally at odds with the basic concept of the ODbL. The only way this could

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Interesting use case of combining OSM with proprietary data

On 1/11/2018 7:30 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: My interpretation of the ODbL here is that this is a share-alike case that would require the combined data sources to be made available. But you could probably also look at it differently. I would like to hear opinions on this. In particular if

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OpenStreetMap usage limits

On 8/3/2016 5:04 AM, stones_edite...@cosoluce.fr wrote: Hi, Our company is developping a web application. Scenario is : ·The web application will be sold to many clients (one application for each) ·The web application will be hosted on our web server most of the time (and in some

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

On 7/22/2016 12:28 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote: Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure algorithm. I then publish the rest of the database and a list of removed nodes under an open license. Do I have to open the algorithm? The database would be a derivative database and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC BY-NC (was FYI Collective Database Guideline)

On 6/10/2016 9:48 AM, Tom Lee wrote: Protecting commercial interests by limiting reuse is generally not a goal of open licenses*. If someone owns proprietary data and wants to extract rents from it, they probably shouldn't contribute it to an open data project like OSM. * obviously there are

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] share-alike on generalized data?

On 2/6/2016 9:41 PM, Tobias Wendorff wrote: I mean, this won't be enough, will it? - get OSM data extract from 2016-02-07 - filter streets - get LMA data extract from 2015-12-31 - open in generalization tool XY with parameters XY When publicly using a derivative database (or produced work from

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

On 11/22/2015 6:19 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: On 23 November 2015 at 13:06, Andrew Harvey 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

[OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's independent of the metadata guideline. On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal status of certain mapping activities

On 9/16/2015 6:03 AM, Toggenburger Lukas wrote: Case 1: Is it legal/desired to look up the address of a particular POI on online maps like Bing map (https://www.bing.com/maps/), search.ch (http://map.search.ch), Google Maps (https://www.google.ch/maps/) or Swiss cantonal geoportals to

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

The problem is that they have specified a license with attribution that is unreasonable for geodata (CC BY 3.0 and earlier). Neither OpenStreetMap.org or most data consumers (e.g. MapBox) would meet the CC BY 3.0 and earlier attribution requirements. There are a few options for permission. The

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

Sent from my Cyanogen phone On Aug 30, 2015 6:04 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Huh. Really? Did I completely misunderstand this?  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission My understanding was that when you import data into OSM, you assign special permission

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM license - any news?

On 8/25/2015 3:55 AM, Simon Poole wrote: - in dire circumstances and with a very large effort, as Paul has pointed out, three and a half years ago I managed to get hold of the responsible person with GADM and get explicit permission for a handful of datasets that had been imported in violation

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM license - any news?

On 8/21/2015 7:41 AM, Simone Aliprandi wrote: Do you know if any news have come in these six years? Do you know if OSM received a sort of direct permission to include those data in the OSM database? GADM is still under a non-commercial license. I don't know who said they were going to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal requirements of permissions to import into OSM

On 7/27/2015 9:00 AM, Tom Lee wrote: 3. if they balk at this, ask for an attribution license, most likely a pre-4.0 version of CC-BY Pre-4.0 CC BY attribute requirements are clearly incompatible with common attribution for multi-source maps, practices of data consumers (including Mapbox), and

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

On 7/13/2015 3:09 AM, Simon Poole wrote: It is, as you may have seen from previous discussions, not clear if the CC 4.0 licences are compatible (with the exception of CC0 naturally) with the ODbL and this is likely not an issue that will be resolved short term. To clarify a bit, any CC

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suspicion of site using OSM data without proper credits?

On 5/23/2015 1:25 PM, Anders Anker-Rasch wrote: Hi, Who do I contact regarding investigations about a site potentially using OSM data without proper credits? Best regards, Anders If you don't want to contact them yourself, you can forward the information to le...@osmfoundation.org

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM based GPS navigations and ODbl license of OSM data

On 1/7/2015 7:21 PM, Stephan Knauss wrote: We could start merging 3rd party ODbL into OSM We can do so right now from a legal perspective. In fact, there are imports of ODbL data that have taken place. But then have a hard time to fulfill attribution requirements. No - we'd attribute the same

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM based GPS navigations and ODbl license of OSM data

On 1/6/2015 11:01 AM, Karel Charvat wrote: Are the developers of Be-On-Road fullfilling their ODbl license obligations by providing their data only in files with unknown format? It depends. If they are not adding any data, they can simply point to the source (planet.osm.org). If they are

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 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

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

On 10/27/2014 4:47 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Picking up on Paul's offer to help along the discussion here [1]. Also copying Steve here as he's renewed his call for better addressing in OpenStreetMap - which I entirely agree with [2]. Feedback from this thread is incorporated on the wiki [2] -

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

On 10/27/2014 5:19 PM, Alex Barth wrote: According to the interpretation in column 1, the ODbL doesn't imply any specific licensing for geocoding results, they are Produced Works. A geocoding result is not the same as a database of geocoding results. Column 1 says the former is a produced

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

On 7/28/2014 12:07 AM, Alex Barth wrote: On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com mailto:penor...@mac.com wrote: Please review: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline Alex, you mention it was based on what you've

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

On 7/28/2014 6:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 07/28/2014 12:07 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: What I'm not clear is if community guidelines are strong enough to able to change it without touching the license itself There's a couple sides to this. OSMF is limited to distributing the data under

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

On 7/10/2014 7:52 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Please review: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline The next step is probably to update this page to represent what there is consensus on out of the discussions and remove what there isn't consensus on. Anyone want

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voting as Associate Member

On 2014-07-23 8:29 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: Hi all, Could anyone provide some insight into voting as a Normal Member vs as an Associate Member of the Foundation? Reading (76) of the AoA (http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association) this would cover most voting situations I have

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

On 2014-07-15 4:26 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: As long as the purpose of a geocoder is geocoding, and not reverse engineering OSM, then it sensibly fits within the notions of an ODbL produced work. A geocoder isn't a produced work or a derived database - it's software. Do you mean a geocoding

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

On 2014-07-14 8:15 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: This is also how I'm reading this. Obviously the sticky point is the definition of what's a database in this sentence: systematically recreate a database from the process. You

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

On 2014-07-14 11:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote: Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of Substantial doesn't matter. A database that is based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or

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

On Jul 11, 2014, at 04:11 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: What I'm looking for a is a clear interpretation by the community, supported OSMF, an interpretation that is a permissive reading of the ODbL on geocoding to unlock use cases.   Guidelines need to be accurate and supported by the

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

On Jul 10, 2014, at 07:54 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding. In a nutshell: geocoding with OSM data yields Produced Work, share alike does not apply to Produced Work, other ODbL stipulations such as attribution do

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reliefweb as data source for OSM?

On 2014-06-29 1:33 AM, Lukas Sommer wrote: Hello. Reliefweb is a service of the United Nations, that contains maps, mostly concerning regions where have been desaster and where humanitairian aid is necessary. Their permission can be found here: http://reliefweb.int/map_permission Is it

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reliefweb as data source for OSM?

On 2014-06-29 3:12 AM, Paul Norman wrote: Is this really acceptable for OSM? If by use you mean upload content to the API based on it, then yes. Whoops - s/yes/no/ Writing messages late at night. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reliefweb as data source for OSM?

On 2014-06-29 3:21 AM, Lukas Sommer wrote: I’m not aware of content that has been imported, but I found http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Uganda/Data_Sources#Relief_Web and wasn’t sure about if this is possible or not. So we can resume that it is not allowed to upload content

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Imports] N50 imports from Kartverket (The Norwegian Mapping Authority)

On 2014-06-21 3:00 PM, Tor wrote: 21. juni 2014 kl. 23:03 skrev Paul Norman penor...@mac.com: I've been looking for some statement that CC BY 4.0 is compatible with ODbL (Or ODC-BY). COuld you provide details on the compatibility? As a reminder, CC BY 3.0 and earlier are incompatible

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Imports] N50 imports from Kartverket (The Norwegian Mapping Authority)

On 2014-06-12 3:01 PM, Tor Mehus wrote: BACKGROUND In September 2013 the Norwegian Mapping Authority (Kartverket) released various data sets under an OSM compatible licence (CC BY 4.0; http://www.kartverket.no/Kart/Gratis-kartdata/Lisens/). I've been looking for some statement that CC BY 4.0

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution)

From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:17 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution) The LWG has spent considerable time discussing the geocoding issue, so it is not as if

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:09 AM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial Without going further into the details of the many drafting shortcomings of ODBL (which, to be

[OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guidelin e for guideline text. The Open Data License defines a term 'Substantial' which is then used in the License to define a threshold about when certain clauses come into effect. Substantial is a term defined in

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 3:10 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial Reminder that Simon has pointed out here quite recently that ODBL claims to be a binding contract

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Review of IndianaMap as potential datasource

If they want to release it under public domain they should just stick a CC0 or PDDL license on it. This would be far simpler than trying to figure out how a grant of rights to a third-party organization affects us, and would allow the use of the data by anyone, including Wikipedia, without any

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey

From: Paulo Carvalho [mailto:paulo.r.m.carva...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 8:51 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey Dear fellow mappers, Let me present myself to you. I'm a OSM mapper from the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec

CC BY 3.0 and earlier had onerous attribution requirements for data. I believe 4.0 fixes this. I don't think anyone has suggested contacting a data provider who's licensed under CC 4.0 licenses to clarify attribution. The issue with 3.0 attribution are not purely theoretical, there have been

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:47 AM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements The thing is that for us, for OpenStreetMap, the attribution is our

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use of maptiles

From: Schröders, Alexander [mailto:alexander.schroed...@sensis-gmbh.de] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 12:48 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] use of maptiles Hello, i develop a commercial application which makes use of the tile material from osm. I read

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Government License - Canada

- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:29 PM To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.' Cc: 'Levene, Mark'; 'David E. Nelson'; talk...@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Government License - Canada cc'ing to a few people who I have

[OSM-legal-talk] Open Government License - Canada

cc'ing to a few people who I have talked about this with in the past. Some governments in Canada have released data under the Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0. This is yet another new license. Some people have asked if we can use datasets available under this license.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License / Copyright - OSM data for commercial use artistic map

OpenLayers is very distinct from any map layers. OpenLayers is a piece of software, a map layer is generally a set of images. I don’t see OpenLayers in use on the site you linked at all. Assuming the Papercraft map linked there is using recent ODbL data, there needs to be an attribution

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] Baltimore County GIS Data is now public domain

From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Baltimore County GIS Data is now public domain Your use of public domain in the subject is potentially confusing, since there is no reliable method for you to declare that the data

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed

From: Stephan Knauss [mailto:o...@stephans-server.de] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed Not understanding what the definition of LIDP is makes it so difficult for me to understand the license. Martin replied earlier and he did interpret it as not suitable

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data location?

From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data location? Ian has already given a good answer. So just a couple of further notes: Some more notes, from a slightly different

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed

From: Stephan Knauss [mailto:o...@stephans-server.de] Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:33 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed Hello, I need some help in understanding a license for using imagery. Is a license called

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger

From: John Bazik [mailto:m...@johnbazik.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:46:30PM -0700, Paul Norman wrote: What do you mean by fields? I mean columns in RDBMS tables. I don't believe you can make any general comment about columns

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger

From: John Bazik [mailto:jba...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger What consitutes substantial? I've read many threads on this, but I find myself no more able to determine what that might be. If there's ambiguity about the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger

From: John Bazik [mailto:m...@johnbazik.com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:55 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger Well there's a pretty strong precedent by the largest user of OSM data to not consider user data part of the same

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data

It’s very important to remember that when the law and license talks about a database, they are not using the same definition as in IT or CS. I imagine you can have a database that doesn’t involve computers at all. A database could be flat files, XML, binary files, or I’m sure other forms.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:58 PM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey Hi Paul Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission from HGK (with a pointer that the data is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

Clarification on numbers: Assuming every node has been moved, we'd be talking about 26k place or mountain peak nodes I can definitely keep, about 3k I can restore from the existing redactions, and about 3k that I'm not sure about. Now, it's entirely possible a bunch of nodes haven't been

[OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:15 PM To: 'Suha Ulgen' Cc: 'OSM Mikel Maron'; 'Schuyler Erle'; 'Mikel Maron'; 'Kate Chapman' Subject: RE: OSM place name data from Turkey From: Suha Ulgen [mailto:m...@suhaulgen.com] Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:56 PM Subject

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] DataBC's Open Data - OGL v1.0 and Nanaimo compatibility

The current Nanaimo license is not compatible with OSM. In fact, the current Nanaimo license does not permit you to redistribute their data at all! I have some contacts from the Open Data summit and I’ll see if I can make any progress on the license issue. Was there a particular dataset

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

The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug. The public domain argument is a bit of a red herring. If OSM used a PD-like license like PDDL

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France

From: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com] Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France Hi all, I'm submitting here a question about the legality of keeping French long hiking routes called GR or GRP or PR in OSM. All these routes are very well known, have

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France

[reordered to place copyright matters together] From: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:26 AM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France Again, you have to understand that

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Advice regarding terms from an agency

Well any imports would need to go by the imports@ list where hopefully the license would be reviewed if necessary. From: Pekka Sarkola [mailto:pekka.sark...@gispo.fi] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:51 AM To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.' Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Advice

[OSM-legal-talk] GADM and Bolivia

I'm sure we're all overjoyed to have this come up again... Background/refresher: GADM is a global administrative boundary dataset under a non-commercial license. Some people imported data from it into OSM, not realizing (or not caring) that it was incompatible with CC BY-SA, ODbL as well as any

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM and Bolivia

Whoops - wrong cc. Too tired + autocomplete. Not that there's anything secret, just no need to say anything much if we got permission. Just a random work item from the DWG. From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:32 AM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark My initial writeup could have been clearer: This RFC _does_ seek to replace the currently recommended line (c) OpenStreetMap contributors linking to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright with a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using CC-BY as a source for Openstreetmap

From: Alex Sims [mailto:a...@softgrow.com] Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Using CC-BY as a source for Openstreetmap Hi, I looked at wiki.openstreetmap.org and couldn't find a straight answer as to wheter CC-BY data sets can be used as a source for Openstreetmap. The South Australian State

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining Creative Commons Licensed Data with ODbL and Redistributing

We've been using CC BY licensed data in OSM. The only potential issue is that they be satisfied that the attribution is reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing. I would consider that a line saying Hazard Data (C) CC BY foo, Map Data (C) ODbL OpenStreetMap contributors with appropriate

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

From: Tobias Knerr [mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:14 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: 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:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US

From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US A related question is whether any agreement like that can be made within the Contributor Terms. With the thread about the Public Domain OSM subset when someone said that the PD

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

From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 11:53 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must be. It is clear that the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US

From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:25 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US Fair point. Still - I would ask what is the purpose of this protection and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data

From: Pavel Pisa [mailto:ppisa4li...@pikron.com] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:01 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data I (for myself strongly demand) that my former and future change sets can be exported from OSM under CC-BY-SA but I

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] New version of US redaction map

...@att.net wrote: On 8/13/2012 11:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote: It’s all CC BY-SA right now so you’d be okay now, but I think it’d be a problem in the future under both CC BY-SA and ODbL if you were mix the data in this way. I'd think this is not actually importing any information directly from

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

From: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in the USA cannot legally

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

From: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work BY-SA doesn't cover databases though (any potential changes in 4.0 notwithstanding). It's important to note that this is only true where databases (like OSM) are not

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

From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:30 PM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia Hi, On 21.07.2012 21:33, Paul Norman wrote: CC 4.0 licenses explicitly

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Insurance for Mapping Party

I actually have some experience in this area, but keep in mind that the requirements may vary significantly by country. Some form of insurance is likely to be required by some organizations. I know the group bike rides I used to go on had insurance. On the other hand, if all you're using their

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MoU between OSM and NLSF

From: Pekka Sarkola [mailto:pekka.sark...@gispo.fi] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:03 AM To: OSM - talk-fi; legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] MoU between OSM and NLSF Dear Friends, I have prepared with National Land Survey of Finland Memorandum of Understanding

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government

From: Kate Chapman [mailto:k...@maploser.com] Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government Hi All, I have a question about what would trigger the ShareAlike in the context of government. Let's say for example a National Mapping Agency takes the OpenStreetMap road data

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government

From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government Hi, The interesting question is, and I don't know if Paul intended to hint at that with his FOI reference: What happens if the information is leaked, e.g. if the ME has to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] BC Open Government License

[1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution On 03/05/2012 01:17, Paul Norman wrote: The BC government has released data under the Open Government License for Government of BC Information[1] which is based

[OSM-legal-talk] BC Open Government License

The BC government has released data under the Open Government License for Government of BC Information[1] which is based on the same license used for OS OpenData information[2]. OS OpenData can be used in OSM[3] The OGL BC is, broadly speaking, an attribution only license that makes allowances

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)

From: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org] Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:08 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft) On 04/04/2012 01:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote: I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What licences (other than ODbL) are compatible with OSM after 1st April

If the import source is something other than PD this point should be discussed in the required messages to the imports@ mailing list before importing. That way the community can decide if they want it with the licensing issues. From: Ian Sergeant [mailto:inas66+...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps

From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps Hi, On 10 March 2012 03:51, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: Hey All, I was wondering what the license implications would be from digitizing from balloon maps that

[OSM-legal-talk] Typos in tags

I was considering a possible scenario which I believe needs to be considered for any data removal and I do not believe is handled by any of the current interpretations of the tools which attempt to state if an object will be removed or not. Suppose mapper A and mapper C have accepted the CTs and

[OSM-legal-talk] Removal of copyrighted data

I have come across some data which I believe was added from a copyrighted source. After discussion on the local list, this data was going to be removed for non-copyright related reasons. At the time I didn't realize that the data was likely problematic from a copyright standpoint. As deleting

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

-Original Message- From: Andreas Labres [mailto:l...@lab.at] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build Hello, there is something wrong with the license status P2 shows... A node without tags holds only one information: its location (lat+lon). So for instance:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

-Original Message- From: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:17 AM To: OSM Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build We suggest that re-mapping by individuals is more important initially than

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for data sources

are listed. Since they have vector data available, importing that (as opposed to tracing) should be the way to go. Michael. On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Is there a consolidated list of licenses that are acceptable on data sources for use for importing

[OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for data sources

Is there a consolidated list of licenses that are acceptable on data sources for use for importing or tracing into OSM? I ask this question because wiki information has been contradicted by email discussion on the subject of City of Vancouver open data. Additionally, is it acceptable to trace