There are 2 solutions for this Steve dilemma:
1. not ask for these little, tiny things and create a real free
map...
2. hire an expensive lawyer and pursue the criminals
Common wake up, this 2014, and if you have gold (the map) in your hands,
don't expect to be treated like a
Some quotes from this thread :
Clifford, to make this very short: this is NOT acceptable. See the last
board minutes.
And I'm very tired of people trying to weasel around the absolute
minimal requirements we pose on reuse of OSM data.
No comment on this one ... who cares if you are tired ?
+1
It's the contributor terms that made me refuse to accept.
Not ODBL. I can see the both the advantages and drawbacks
of ODBL but these are not a major problem.
For me the CT has been a problem.
I principally refuse to sign a contract where I can be held legally
responsible
for data
I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).
Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
or any area, the nodes should be considered a composition rather
then 4 nodes.
While the underlying structure is a
Just as a warning: replacing non-compliant nodes does
not mean just placing another node adjacent to it.
That's copying (or tracing).
This O-trick suggestion invites our members to fraude.
Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous
owner, just as copying from google would violate
[mailto:o...@raggedred.net]
Verzonden: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:56 PM
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: Just shut up
Gert,
Every time you send one of your stupid rants to OSM you just make a fool
of yourself. Unlike you, we know what we are doing and, unlike you, we
You are right Richard.
This O-trick actually is just a shortcut for delete and (re)place.
Just the thread in which it is presented is a bit suspicious.
The reason why anyone would want to remove a node and replace one at the same
(or approximate) location escapes my logic.
It disturbs history,
, we would have 100% of
everything anyway in roughly two years if we simply just let things carry on as
they are now (which is not the intention).
Simon
Am 24.09.2011 16:29, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
irony ON
It seems as if the community is not that motivated
to re
Yes you can as OSM is explicitly mentioned in the EULA for OSM.
Of course you must think about what SPOT service the EULA stands for.
However, you may not use the OSM editor Potlatch, as integrated
on the OSM website.
Listed are JOSM / Viking and Merkaartor only.
I do not know why, but it is
Hi Angelika,
Please note that OSM is currently distributed under the CC-BY-SA
license. There are plans to create a ODBL version of this database as a
derived work, but the required modifications to the database have not
yet started and the community has not yet agreed on a date for this to
.
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl
mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the
liability of the suitability to the contributor,
where declaring PD does not.
The Board wants us to sign a contract with them.
It's not about
access back
Op 10-08-11 12:33, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schreef:
To all
It's all a matter of trust.
A) Trusting contributors and
b) trusting the users of OSM data.
The current policy of OSM is to trust nobody,
and therefore OSM(F) is seeking legal certainty,
by creating
...@poole.ch]
Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:57 AM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
...
It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about
...@poole.ch]
Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:42 PM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Am 11.08.2011 12:00, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen:
Thanks Simon for your constructive reply.
(contrary to those that call any
It's OSM that obliges users to contribute CC-BY-SA
and it's OSM that obliges users to contribute ODBL.
But many of us want to contribute PD and do not want
to comply with any CT at all. PD data does not need a
complicated and binding CT as the current one.
And the current situation is not
To all
It's all a matter of trust.
A) Trusting contributors and
b) trusting the users of OSM data.
The current policy of OSM is to trust nobody,
and therefore OSM(F) is seeking legal certainty,
by creating licenses and contributor terms.
It will probably take a long time for those
seeking
What is worrying me is that the LWG (=OSMF=COMMUNITY)
requires any contributor (us) to sign up using a CT,
where BING can get away with a simple blog page.
I *can* understand that, because it's not OSM that is addressed
in this blog, but the individuals (us) making contributions.
The permission
So there won't be a problem if on day X the version of John Smith will
be removed from the database and on day X+2 I would enter one of the
versions I've shown, right?
Right, under the assumption both cannot be copyrighted,
not even under OdBL, being *fact*.
If they *are* copyrighted, no you
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Maarten Deen wrote:
Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value
of the highway tag is not a geographical fact.
Sure they are.
If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry
sign at a
+1
Frederik has not shown much respect for any argument
nor to anyone that disagrees with the future commercialisation
of OSM. (with that I means making OSM optimally fit for commercial use;
disregarding the open principles that OSM started with:
leaving out the Share Alike principle)
+1
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 7 juli 2011 19:55
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:17 PM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing
What's wrong with asking everyone AGAIN ?
If something is wrong, then it cannot be difficult to correct.
If a youg organization as OSM is not flexible, who the hell on earth IS ?
Or even better, let the community choose what CT/LICENSE is best.
Email is free, and a voting webtool is available
19 juni 2011 6:59
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com
regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl 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.
If you are legally sure and prove that they were cc-by-sa in the first
place. ;))
This copyright stuff for soft - ware (not software) is a can of worms
that will
kill the project in the
The CT/License Vote was IMHO not meant to be a serious democratic
process. Instead a majority was searched for a OSMF decision:
cynism on
like non anonymous voting for a single party in some countries
where your lose your job if voting against -fill in your favorite dictator-
cynism off
As long as
The problems with the CC-BY-SA license are fully hypothetical,
as there have been no real life problems.
There have been some hesitations at commercial users of OSM data
with the Share Alike part, but OSM is not bound to enforce the SA part
of the current license either, so we could just allow
Am i missing something ?
Dermot is answering messages that are not on this list.
Gert Gremmen
-
Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest)
Before printing, think about the environment.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dermot McNally
How do we match 121,000 with 17,800 ???
Steve wrote :
Over 121,000 contributors have already accepted the new terms and we hope you
will too.
The Minutes state:
Of voluntary acceptances, we have 17,280 with still about 200 a day coming in.
There are 284 declines and the rate has slowed
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the
CT)
On 18/04/11 22:41, Simon Ward wrote:
The only restriction I have seen is that some software developers
perceive reciprocal licences as a hindrance because the reciprocal
licenses prevent them from removing
Granting rights to a central body (but not
your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open
communities.
Some contributors do not want to do *anything* that is related
to the legal system in this world. Many people just don't want to
be involved in that. We click everyday on
FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's
CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his
own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So
this should be less problematic than the FSF situation.
That is like writing a
-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen:
FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand,
OSMF's
CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on
his
own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So
this should be less problematic than
You do realize that you already have an agreement with the OSMF?
Will you sent me a copy ?
OSMF did not even exist when I signed up, so I doubt if there is
another agreement then a single sided.
And I still doubt that OSMF is representing the community
in a way there statutes say.
Gert
Mikel, stop trying to smooth talk.
The CT says fundamentally nothing about GPS and entering data, but
talks just
about transferring rights to an arbitrary group of individuals called
OSMF, members of the osm community, (currently)with and (in the future?)
without
the best intents for the
can't give you a copy of the prior terms
(and the argument applies equally well to whatever the agreement could
be construed to be for the mappers that started prior the founding of
the OSMF).
Simon
Am 17.04.2011 14:12, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen:
You do realize
CT (nor refuse it, because that way I recognize
its existence).
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Francis Davey [mailto:fjm...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 15:07
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
CC: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: Re
Thanks Grant,
I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe
unclear:
What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor
terms mean:
From CT 1.2.4/2
These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude
any
field of endeavour.
As written
Francis wrote:
I certainly agree that taking legal action should be low on any list.
It can be expensive, risky and time consuming.
+1
If you want to prevent unattributed uses and so on, having a dedicated
team of volunteers to work out the best approaches (and different
sarcasm on
So we have 15 years to discuss the next licence
Why the hurry ?
sarcasm off
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Anthony
Verzonden: vrijdag 7 januari 2011 16:29
Aan: Licensing and other
AM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
Hi,
On 01/05/11 09:01, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Is there a tool available to remove all my contributed data from osm,
safeguard it, and allows me to resubmit once I can
You have a point. ;
But I wrote just my intention, not my decision.
But I can still remove whatever data I consider mine.
(well, until april 1st)
Gert Gremmen
-
Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest)
Before printing, think about the
-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Rob Myers
Verzonden: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:36 AM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On 11/25/2010 07:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
3) I don't care if anybody copies
Matthias Julius
Verzonden: Thursday, November 25, 2010 4:47 PM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:56:54 +, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/25/2010 01:33 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact,
along with the other details.
Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed
for factual information.
[GG]
I agree with that, and no facts can be protected by any law.
Creativity is used in the
45 matches
Mail list logo
