Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brexit & EU database rights

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sui-generis-database-rights-after-the-transition-period is the UKs governments guidance on this.  On re-reading I agree that the withdrawal agreement itself is rather ambiguous, and there is a lot of conflicting advice on the matter, see for example https://www.googl

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brexit & EU database rights

My understanding is that 58.2 covers the rights of UK based entities, with other words it extends the directives article 11 to cover UK residents and entities. Am 14. Dezember 2020 00:11:25 MEZ schrieb Tom Hummel via legal-talk : >Simon, > >sorry for reopening. > >> This was the subject of the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brexit & EU database rights

mon On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 20:52, Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: Am 13.12.2020 um 20:12 schrieb Tom Hummel via legal-talk: > Hi all, > > Am Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2020, 15:58:48 CET schrieb Simon Poole: >> The relevant bit of the directive

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brexit & EU database rights

Am 13.12.2020 um 20:12 schrieb Tom Hummel via legal-talk: Hi all, Am Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2020, 15:58:48 CET schrieb Simon Poole: The relevant bit of the directive is in article 11. As you can see the rights are dependent on being domiciled in the EU, not on the physical location of the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brexit & EU database rights

herwise, I suppose), and the new EU one, and the servers work off them in tandem? On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 23:18, Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: To answer the questions caveat there is no relevant court decisions that I know of, so this is all likely untested: i

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brexit & EU database rights

To answer the questions caveat there is no relevant court decisions that I know of, so this is all likely untested: insubstantial changes to a database do not create a new one, but substantial changes do. Where the line is drawn, or better where the OSMF draws the line, is currently open. See a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brexit & EU database rights

Legal talk is not the LWG list if that isn't clear, that is le...@osmfoundation.org Simon Am 10.12.2020 um 22:11 schrieb Edward Bainton: A pleasure meeting you all at LWG this evening. I saw Brexit in the minutes for September "At the end of year we won't be losing database rights immediately

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Data Portal License CC0 1.0 and OpenStreetMap

Everything relevant has been documented here https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility for a long time. Am 6. November 2020 17:47:16 MEZ schrieb "Pierre Béland via legal-talk" : > 2020-10-06 , Mateusz Konieczny wrote via legal-talk : >> For example Wikidata is CC0 but

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

Just as a note, prior to the review of CC BY 4.0 compatibility by the LWG (and CC fwiw), we were very clear that 4.0 licensed material should -not- be imported, the importers knew this and were ignoring it at their own risk. Simon Am 23.10.2020 um 10:43 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via legal-tal

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] local copyright law on government data and OSM license

This is not a particular unique situation, a sovereign country can, naturally, create exclusive rights or specific regulation for more or less whatever it cares. Copyright is simply the most popular, with wide spread understanding and international treaties as support, set of exclusive intellectua

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Data in wikidata

Am 16.06.2020 um 13:51 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > Am Di., 16. Juni 2020 um 13:32 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>>: > > (not discussing if the material added is even protected > to start with). > > > > As you are mentioning it, are

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Data in wikidata

Am 16.06.2020 um 13:13 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > Provided that ODbL and OpenStreetMap would be sufficiently linked, is > it then possible to copy OSM data into wikidata, which is distributed > as CC0? > > As been pointed out many, many, many times (and it is not going to change

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal questions about using OSM

You are unnecessarily making your life hard. There is a big red warning at the top of the "Use Cases" page, simply take it seriously (the content of that page was written in 2012 a rather long time ago and before any of the guidelines existed). The current relevant guidelines are available from htt

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New data source

I would suggest that you give a heads up on talk-gb in any case so that other UK contributors know what's going on. Simon Am 18.01.2020 um 01:56 schrieb Cj Malone: > Thanks Kathleen, > > I'll add attribution to the wiki tomorrow. > > My current intention isn't to automatically import, but rather

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] distance calculations

Am 16.12.2019 um 17:22 schrieb Nuno Caldeira: > it's a derivated, therefore share alike. I'm glad they trusted OSM data. I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Yes the distances are a Produced Work which, if publicly used, implies that if a Derivative Database was used to produce the dista

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

Just to be clear: you asked a question on an unmoderated, publicly accessible mailing list on which everybody can voice their opinions however unfounded they are or not, and now you are unhappy with that you got a cacophony of conflicting opinions, which is exactly what you should have expected. T

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

Yes, if a Derivative Database was created in the first place, and that is not clear at all, see: /“Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and// //includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any// //other alteration of the Database or of a Substanti

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensability of an employee's work

to sign the > Contributor Agreement, which would have been required for them > to do their job. > > Thus, while it would be easy for an employer to claim > ownership of such edits, I think it would be difficult for > that same emp

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensability of an employee's work

The question is rather complicated and if at all can really only be approached on a per jurisdiction base as both employment regulation and certain aspects of intellectual property law differ widely by territory. So the 1st thing to clarify would be where this is taking place and which law is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database Contents License background

This is simply a licence for the individual constituent parts of a database when that database is licensed on ODbL terms, in particular as in the case of OSM these are geographic facts. It is not a licence that has any bearing outside of such use. To understand it, it is probably simpler to consid

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

Am 07.10.2019 um 01:23 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber: > I thought, whenever you re-digitize OSM data from a printed map, it would get > ODbL again. According to current ruling by European Court of Justice, a > printed map is just a database (it has been judged for a German topographical > map in sm

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

Are you really doing this (applies to your 2nd question too) or are you dealing in hypotheticals? As this would seem to be a rather roundabout way to get shapefiles from OSM data it just seems to be rather unlikely. In any case you are creating a derivative of a CC BY-SA 2.0 licensed work which re

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Houston, TX, open data policy license compliance

While the policy is undoutably good, it does not follow that all data published actually conforms to it (for example third party rights in existing data could be an issue). In any case on data.houstontx.gov the licence is specified for 7 datasets, so I assume the intent is to do that for all over

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OpenData from Geoinformationservice Germany Rheinland-Pfalz

See https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Licences_that_require_downstream_attribution Not news btw, the licence has been the subject of many discussion. The other thing is that they have a nonsense header on that page "Webcontent-Anzeige" which make it rather unclear

[OSM-legal-talk] ODI geospatial data re-users guide

Hi Deborah That sounds like an useful and interesting project. I would however like to note that the warning at the top of the "use case" page is to be taken literally. Neither are the use cases vetted against what has been typically actually been asked (contrary to the thought up use cases) sin

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License clarification

The grey area (particularly since you are doing this at the end of the processing chain)  is really if the end result is a produced work or not (the third kind of derivative you can have in the ODBL), because if it is, then 4.5 b. kicks in /b. Using this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Da

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brazilian postal code database patent application in Germany apparently rejected

IANAL It seems as if whatever they tried to patent in Germany was actually definitely rejected. Notes: - this does not imply that they failed elsewhere, YWHTPM to find that out. - while patents can apply to the processing and use of OSM data and potentially (by a long stretch of imagination) to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright vs Contributors pages

The split is simply historic, there is a low priority plan to merge both lists, but it is one of the things that keeps on getting pushed back. Simon Am 08.01.2018 um 11:00 schrieb Javier Sánchez Portero: > Hello > > I have a doubt about the existence of two levels of attribution in OSM: > > The

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Permission letter template

That is IMHO, not a particularly good template, and is a classical example of a page that should have been deleted instead of leaving it around to confuse. The examples on  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission are a bit better (the page is badly named that is why it is not f

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM data - Legal question about license agreement

Hi Mike You need to get your lawyer to look at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence in particular http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines I'm afraid nobody can offer case by case vetting of specific business cases, at best we can point you to general guidance, and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] wikidata cc0 <> odbl

Well IMHO none of this is relevant, as we do not claim any rights in individual elements in our database. As a result every single operation for itself is completely OK. The issues start when you (and I include any method of work splitting in that) do any of them systematically in a way that is no

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Commercial use case. Internal DB with calculations from OSM

A couple comments: - if a Derivate Database is used for non internal use, for example to provide a service to third parties, its use is "Publicly". Definition in the ODBL is "“Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control byeither more than 50% ownership or by the power to dir

[OSM-legal-talk] Draft Geocoding Guideline

One of the larger items the LWG has been working on this year is an attempt to provide more clarity on how our licence works with respect to geocoding. As some of you know this is a fairly controversial topic and a number of different approaches have been suggested and discussed in the past. We

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

Am 30.05.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > > This is what they've said: > > "I have discussed this with our legal section and we are not in a > position to waive the conditions of CC BY, as it goes against the ACT > Government Open Data Policy that supports free and open data. > > My in

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

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? The problem with point 2 is that, if taken seriously, the relevant terms impose rather far reaching restrictions on how derived works can be used, for example a map generated from s

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Taiwan Open Government Data License

routing algorithms > > If you don't feel comfortable about the terms, the Open Government > Data License also allow the data to be licensed under Creative Commons > Attribution License 4.0 International in clause 4.2. > > [1] http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCod

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Taiwan Open Government Data License

9:46AM +0800, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote: >> OK thanks Simon for the clarification! >> I'll ask the participants of >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/odtwn/permalink/1927450013936074/?comment_id=1927539973927078 >> and >> https://discuss.okfn.org/t/license-approval-requ

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Taiwan Open Government Data License

As has already been pointed out 3.2 could be problematic. The translation is a bit wobbly and unclear, but if I understand it correctly the intent is to reference a data set specific attribution requirement that would naturally have to be looked at for any specific data use. The really killer is h

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

gt; generic waiver applies to the same cc-* licenses as the two version > specific references. > > Cheers > Blake > > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Simon Poole wrote: >> Sorry this took so long, I've added suggested wording here >> https://wiki.osmfoundation.or

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

Sorry this took so long, I've added suggested wording here https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates Thanks again to Kathleen Lu for drafting this. Simon Am 23.01.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Simon Poole: > The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY 4.0 and rights holder(s) explicit statement

See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ Am 06.02.2017 um 22:32 schrieb Simon Poole: > > > > On 06.02.2017 09:55, Erno Mäkinen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> For example, for the CC-BY 3.0 Unported license the ODbL >> Compatibility in the OSM wik

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY 4.0 and rights holder(s) explicit statement

On 06.02.2017 09:55, Erno Mäkinen wrote: > Hi, > > For example, for the CC-BY 3.0 Unported license the ODbL Compatibility > in the OSM wiki states that it "is ODbL compatible if rights holder(s) > explicitly states in writing that credit on the Contributors >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Series of maps for Angola

Marcus I'm not quite sure if there is a real issue. If you derive the boundaries you use from OSM, yes it is unlikely that it is non-substantial if you are using them for a whole country and the result is likely subject to share alike. However that only requires you to make the your modified data

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no need for me to climb out on a limb :-). I'll ask for an opinion internally and get back to you. Simon Am 23.01.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole wrote: >> Blake where

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

Blake where is the imagery provider in question based? Simon Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole wrote: >> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would >> seem to be suboptimal an

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

Am 21.01.2017 um 22:42 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > ... > Is it enough to get a permission to distribute it under ODbL? Wouldn't > it also be needed to have a permission for DbCL? The DbCL states that > the stored components don't have a foreign copyright. So contracts, which > tell us "you can dis

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

I've pointed this our before. but anyway: we don't really care that much about the imagery licence as such as long as we are allowed to display it in the usual OSM tools. The real question are the rights in digitized vector data from that imagery. The best situation IMHO is if the provider of the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data

The LWG is working on a statement wrt CC-BY 4.0 compatibility and is in direct contact with Creative Commons. I suspect that we will have something in latest a couple of weeks, including a template waiver/statement that we will need for such sources. Simon Am 09.01.2017 um 03:07 schrieb cleary:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tunisia delegations areas import :: Need for a license clearence

;open data friendly" I suspect it is not a big issue. Simon Am 05.01.2017 um 15:46 schrieb Simon Poole: > > As far as I can tell the license is in principle suitable, they even > warrant that the data is free of rights of third parties, BUT, alas, > the attribution requirement

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tunisia delegations areas import :: Need for a license clearence

As far as I can tell the license is in principle suitable, they even warrant that the data is free of rights of third parties, BUT, alas, the attribution requirement in (4) would seem to suffer from the usual issue that it requires downstream attribution which we cannot provide. That is naturally a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Current status of CC-BY 4.0?

The LWG is in the process of discussing its concerns with CC and hopes to be able to clarify things soon. Some of the concerns are 4.0 specific, some would in principle apply to the previous versions too. Simon Am 07.12.2016 um 20:21 schrieb Rory McCann: > Hi all, > > The wiki page on ODbL comba

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Trying Again - Horizontal Map Layers for Custom Video Game Data

IMHO it is unlikely that randomly generated (during the game) data would be considered a database to start with, if you are not using OSM data for such features in any case, then there is even less reason for concern. Further as long as you remain within the boundaries of the trivial transformation

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using closed sources to spot errors

It is simply a case of YMMV depending at least on - territory where the data is being used - territory where the data was entered - territory from where the data is distributed and for each of the above - legislation (copyright and other) - case law and any ToS/contracts associated with the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] source=telephone_survey?

While going there and checking for yourself would clearly be better (with input from the operators), I don't see any legal reason why this should be problematic, as long as they are aware: - what the information is going to be used for - are authorised to give it out Both points however have mo

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Disclaimers of title in open licenses/OGL [was Re: Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)]

Am 09.09.2016 um 21:30 schrieb Luis Villa: > ... > If this sort of provenance issue is a real concern, OSM should push > data sources to document and review their processes, and perhaps > consider improving provenance data in the database directly (so that > the problems are easier to fix once id

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

Am 09.09.2016 um 19:43 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists): > > There was a case in the UK where (IIRC) house price data was offered > under the UK Open Government Licence (OGL). It turned out later that > the addresses in it had been checked/normalised using a proprietary > address database, an

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

is implicit in all licenses - if there is third party material in a > work that the open licensor isn't authorized to license, then that > material isn't licensed to you, regardless of what the license says. > > Luis > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:56 PM Simon Poole <mailt

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

The additional terms are "a bit of" a problem, however might be surmountable if they are willing to give us a statement specifically for the inclusion in OSM (along the lines of that they agree that the inclusion of the data in OpenStreetMap and distribution on terms of an open and free licence fu

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] contributor terms

Essentially it doesn't have any effect wrt your old contributions since they are not suddenly "un-redacted", so no need to panic. It would still be a good idea to reset the flag, BUT, legal-talk is definitely not the right place to get that done. Please simply contact the system admins. Simon A

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] strava heatmap

Hi Joost This is nearly a FAQ see for example this thread https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-July/008159.html If necessary I can draft a text for the case of deriving data by tracing from imagery or similar sources. Simon Am 12.08.2016 um 14:57 schrieb joost schouppe: >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] maps.me hotel data (again)

First a general comment: I would in general refer to the "Collective Database" guideline as it is essentially an extension of the ideas first formulated there and a bit more rigorous in its treatment of the subject matter. When we created the "Horizontal Layer" guideline, while not explicitly said

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attributive data enrichment using OSM

IMHO it is rather unclear a) who is contracting the work you are supposed to do b) who is going to receive the product(s ?) in the end and yes you may not be able to disclose details in public, which is why I'm always very sceptical about having such discussions on this list. In the end it depe

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

dianepeters > 13:00-21:00 UTC > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: > > > > > > There are no substantial differences between the CC BY 3.0 and > the CC BY > > 4.0 licences. A summary of the diff

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

> > There are no substantial differences between the CC BY 3.0 and the CC BY > 4.0 licences. A summary of the differences can be found here: > https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/version4/. > > CC BY 4.0 (like CC BY 3.0) does not prevent OpenStreetMap from applyi

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

Am 08.07.2016 um 14:52 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together, > the results must be shared under the ODBL. No. First a general remark: A data consumer that is not complying with the ODbL always has two options to comply with the licence: -

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

Unluckily this simply confirms that the data cannot be included in OSM. As I pointed out before, this is simply an indirect subsidy of the producers of proprietary data and closed systems. Simon Am 08.07.2016 um 03:15 schrieb cleary: > The issue of using the Australian PSMA Administrative Bound

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

Am 29.06.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > Am Mi, 29.06.2016, 22:58 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> just that this list becomes very long, see >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors > You wouldn't see "data.gov.au" in a German map extract of course. > I just wasn't creative eno

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

The explicit permission that we received was for data released directly by the Australian government, it is unclear if that could apply to data that they have licensed from a third party for distribution which seems to be the case here. CC by 4.0 reduced the requirements on attribution compared to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] seeking understanding of usage of geocoding and POI

g OSM data in a way that is incompatible with the licence you simply either have to rectify that (which could for example be by not using the data publicly) or stop using OSM data. Simon Poole signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ leg

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

Am 10.06.2016 um 16:25 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > A question to "the non-OSM and OSM datasets do not reference each other": > > Let's say, I've added municipal road identification numbers to the OSM > database (not in my extract, but the "real" database). > > I later want to join other informatio

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

Am 09.06.2016 um 17:40 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote: >> I can understand the desire for a negative example, but: >> >> - this is documentation of use that we are happy with, not of the >> opposite. > But we are happy with u

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

Am 09.06.2016 um 17:36 schrieb Simon Poole: > > Am 09.06.2016 um 17:06 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists): >> Also (and it may be deliberate) this guideline doesn't address the >> question of what filtering / querying you can do with your collective >> data

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

Am 09.06.2016 um 17:06 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists): > > Also (and it may be deliberate) this guideline doesn't address the > question of what filtering / querying you can do with your collective > database. For instance, under the guideline I can take OSM restaurant > data, and add third

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

ine would be de-duplication of elements in OSM and a third party dataset to generate a common database. in which each object only exists once. Simon Am 09.06.2016 um 14:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote: >> The LWG has just forwa

[OSM-legal-talk] FYI Collective Database Guideline

FYI 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 guidance from the OSMF. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

> exist I haven't found anything online yet. > > Dale > > On Mar 18, 2016 9:58 PM, "Simon Poole" <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: > > Diane > > Any comment from CC on the -other- issues that have been raised > wrt CC by 4.0 and ODbL c

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

Diane Any comment from CC on the -other- issues that have been raised wrt CC by 4.0 and ODbL compatibility and in general with the way it works for databases? Simon Am 18.03.2016 um 17:19 schrieb Diane Peters: > Just to be clear on the attribution removal requirement in CC's > licenses, Erik ass

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

Am 13.03.2016 um 19:31 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > Am So, 13.03.2016, 16:49 schrieb Simon Poole: >> I wrote the opposite. > Is my English that bad? Perhaps you can read German, perhaps anyone > else can. That's what my brain has translated from your writing: > > "Es

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

Am 13.03.2016 um 16:33 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > Am So, 13.03.2016, 16:06 schrieb Simon Poole: > >> It does (care about a change to the OSM layer). It addresses exactly the >> case that you could use your 3rd party data to generate an OSM extract >> that doesn't co

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

Am 13.03.2016 um 14:36 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:06 schrieb Simon Poole: >> I specifically limited my point to the case in which there was no >> changes to the OSM layer due to the 3rd party layer and vice versa. > Yeah, I've understood this p

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

um 13:57 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:50 schrieb Simon Poole: >> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: >>> but of course it interacts with the features. >> How? > That's exactly written in here: > http://wiki.osmfoundation.or

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

Am 13.03.2016 um 13:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > but of course it interacts with the features. How? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/lis

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

IMHO if you don't undertake any efforts to suppress duplicate objects (which would include purely visual operations too) you already have completely separate datasets and are already clearly in, potentially ugly though, Collective Database territory. Simon Am 13.03.2016 um 13:11 schrieb Tobias

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

Am 13.03.2016 um 12:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: > I totally understand your expaination and I often used the same words > to describe ODbL. But the OSMF should release a notification to clearly > state the difference between other produced works (like artwork based > on OpenStreetMap) and printed

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Importing from an application's user generated content

Am 04.02.2016 um 04:07 schrieb Michael Ledford: > ... >> Worst case, if the data you upload contains copyrighted material and we >> cannot easily enough identify which of your data is tainted and which is >> ok, then *all* data you uploaded might have to be removed again. > And this is why I am a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Trouble understanding the "Derivative database" implications

Am 29.01.2016 um 19:43 schrieb Simon Poole: > The OpenStreetMap is exactly that (a wiki), anybody can write > essentially anything on it wiki signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Trouble understanding the "Derivative database" implications

The OpenStreetMap is exactly that (a wiki), anybody can write essentially anything on it, and as such the page you are referring to is neither vetted by the OSMF (the licensor of the OSM data) nor are they in any other way official or maintained. See * http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

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

As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a completely new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and potentially is not "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of getting permission to attribute on the website. Further it could be argued that in reality such permi

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

Am 28.12.2015 um 14:46 schrieb Simon Poole: > > that we other attribution in the contributor terms and on the other > That naturally should have been "that we offer attribution in the contributor terms ..." signature.asc Description: OpenPG

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

24, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Andrew Harvey >> wrote: >>> Sorry my mistake. Thanks for picking up on that. >>> >>> On 24/12/2015 9:01 pm, "Simon Poole" wrote: >>>> Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey: >>>>> I'm real

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

I would have to strongly agree with Robert. Matter of fact my position is that we have in the past been too lenient in this respect and should be much more strict going forward matching the growth of OSM and its usage globally. Unluckily the situation that IP law tends to be very territorial and

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

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 standard license for government geospatial data in > Australia, and it would be much simpler to interchange data both ways There might be a misunderstanding th

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

Am 23.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > 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. > > Are you -actually- doing this or would like to it or is this a thought experiment? signatu

[OSM-legal-talk] Interesting ruling by the ECJ

For those that do not read weeklyOSM/Wochennotiz (you really should) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62014CJ0490&lang1=de&type=TXT&ancre= Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@o

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] question regarding produced work

? there are 4 responses to your mail, at least one with a question that you haven't answered . Am 19.11.2015 um 08:51 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber: > Three days are gone and still no discussion about this topic. > I think, nobody is really interested in discovering license violations and > pena

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] GeoBadges 1.0 for OpenStreetMap

during the sign up process without creating a cascade of further problems. Simon PS: given that this is slowly getting very off topic , I would suggest carrying on the discussion on the legal-talk list. Am 18.11.2015 um 02:26 schrieb Simon Poole: > > > Am 18.11.2015 um 01:26 schrieb Kate C

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] question regarding produced work

Lars, is there any indication that the site uses for the map anything else than existing OSM data? Note that we do not require trivial transformations of OSM data to be published as long as the original data is available (for very obvious reasons). See http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/C

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] giving credit

Typically we credit on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors which is linked to from the copyright page, the copyright page itself is really only for very special (and historic) cases. Simon Am 05.11.2015 um 02:38 schrieb Mike Dupont: > On the copyright page I see credit for various pla

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Proposed Collective Database Guideline (was Meta-Data Guideline)

Am 05.11.2015 um 11:22 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > are we going to define "geometry type", "primary feature data" and > "primary map feature"? E.g. is a "multiline string" or a "group of > nodes" a geometry type? > What is a "property" and how is it different to a "primary map > feature" or

[OSM-legal-talk] Proposed Collective Database Guideline (was Meta-Data Guideline)

You may have seen an early version of this either on legal-talk or via WeeklyOSM/WochenNotiz. It's gone through a number of revisions since then and has incorporated input from a number of sources. Thanks to everybody that took the time to work on it. Content wise this version is slightly less tec

  1   2   3   4   >