Rob Myers schrieb:
Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to
the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide
sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions.
WHAT about IANAL in my message don't you understand?
Robert Kaiser
On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Rob Myers schrieb:
Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to
the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide
sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions.
WHAT about IANAL in my
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Rob Myers schrieb:
Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to
the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide
sources
Anthony schrieb:
1) You can't take things out of the public domain.
Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind)
make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any
different terms you like, right?
I think it's clear that what is currently in the OSM
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
1) You can't take things out of the public domain.
Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind)
make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different
terms
Anthony schrieb:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in
some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there
are
Anthony:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to
the applicable case law in
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located
in
some
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Anthony:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Please name the jurisdictions
: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:38:50
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Simon,
Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07
I agree with Frederik's very nice comparison of OSM with volunteer
organizations as well.
I guess OSM should be viewed as a collection of geodata to which
Frederik, John, Liz, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Richard, Richard,
Richard, et al have contributed to, instead of as a collection of
On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not
created to control the data. In fact, this was a key founding
principle. OSMF was created to support the project,
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not
created to control the
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because
otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person?
I'm not sure what you mean by owns
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By the way: The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is
not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About
___
legal-talk
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because
otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person?
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Andreas Perstinger
On 2010-12-08 15:46, Anthony wrote:
Who owns Wikipedia?
At the copyright level, the ownership is fragmented.
And yet that didn't stop the licence being changed.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located
in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've
heard, there are quite a few). :P
Robert Kaiser
___
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in
some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there
are quite a few). :P
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Or maybe Frederik can answer it:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
Then no one should own the database right.
So we're back at the status quo which is in my opinion not the best
option (many uncertainties).
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF
On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that
the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first
place.
I think there's
On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree with you that more
On 2010-12-08 18:36, Francis Davey wrote:
There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui
generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that
their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that
view, but other views are more problematic.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one
of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm
quite wary of collectivism and the
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that
the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
to you the individual
listt...@openstreetmap.org; Serge Wroclawskiemac...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF
a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to
their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be
changed in the future without the
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF
a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to
their personal rights. I
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the
license under which everyone elses content is published.
Yes. But
-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the
license under which
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example,
* license the data under a non-free or non-open license
Free according to whom? Open according to whom?
* license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
To change the CT, all they have to do is 1)
require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have
a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new
CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license
On 8 December 2010 00:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively
On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Disappointing as ever... [citation needed]
What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up
on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false
statement being made repeatedly and you don't
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort
of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the
subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more
integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's
Simon,
Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
My statement above arose from a discussion in which pec...@gmail.com wrote:
I know that
On 8 December 2010 11:40, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and
on with vexatious claims.
What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you
point them out? List archive links prefered.
So you've
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
pec...@gmail.com wrote:
License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change
data license to any other free license (which could be strip share
alike and attribution requirements) what blocks
43 matches
Mail list logo
