Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@... writes:
From the Contributor Terms:
You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a
worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license
to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the
Contents, whether
2010/1/12 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
That is an interesting point.
If map data is covered by copyright, then without copyright assignment
the ability of the OSMF to enforce share-alike is weakened.
As I've observed OSMF cannot enforce share-alike under the existing
contributor terms because
80n schrieb:
CC-BY-SA doesn't require contribution back but it does *permit*
contribution back. That's an important distinction.
We're currently working on the assuption that you can comply with
CC-BY-SA by giving attribution to the OpenStreetMap contributors. That
assumption is no longer
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
80n schrieb:
CC-BY-SA doesn't require contribution back but it does *permit*
contribution back. That's an important distinction.
We're currently working on the assuption that you can comply with
CC-BY-SA by giving
80n schrieb:
Attribution is dealt with by entries on this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution
I suppose that's ok for OSMF itself. But if someone wants to use an OSM
map in a book or a flyer, are they expected to include that wiki page?
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
80n schrieb:
Attribution is dealt with by entries on this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution
I suppose that's ok for OSMF itself. But if someone wants to use an OSM
map in a book or a flyer, are they
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will
make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with
information on how to vote on an upcoming license change
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Although, for the most part, CC-BY-SA does have roughly the same effect in
all jurisdictions. You can do whatever you want with the geodata, so long
as you don't legally restrict others from using the geodata you add.
In
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:24:47PM +, 80n wrote:
Any share-however-you-like license has the properties you describe. We're
talking about share-alike here.
It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about
contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:33:44PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
back, and that having changed licences once it's important that OSM be
able to change/upgrade/whatever the licence in the future
I believe the contributor terms are too broad. I answered the poll in
favour of moving to the ODbL, but
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
The upgrade clause in the ODbL should be sufficient
for any future licensing, and if the change is away from that, I expect
as a contributor to be consulted about it.
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF
membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
contributors.
if you want to be consulted about any future licensing change, just
join OSMF or continue to
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF
membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
contributors.
I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I
actually think it should
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:21:41AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about
contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is about.
i'm both a producer and a
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I
actually think it should be scrapped completely, because it doesn’t
matter whether somebody isn’t active any more.
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not
active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
why, while
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not
active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
why, while
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will
make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with
information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and
if I don't react
Anthony schreef:
You grant everyone the right to do anything. You're effectively
releasing your content into the public domain.
And since OSMF are using a broad non-exclusive licence on the
database,
and you are arguign that for an individual to do this effectively
gives
2010/1/4 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Hence not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing. You give up
the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue.
I hope its OK if I butt in here. I'm not a proper OSMF person, just an
interested lawyer who reads your list. However I think your
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
What OSMF _may_ get is a database right in all the bits of
contribution that they get from contributors. I say _may_ because
database right is not a straightforward. Its quite possible they won't
have such a right, but
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be acceptable?
The current situation is acceptable. We all grant a license to everyone
under CC-BY-SA.
which ranges from being basically PD in some
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be acceptable?
The current situation is acceptable. We all grant a
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be
2010/1/5 Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com:
2010/1/4 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Hence not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing. You give up
the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue.
...
Now *that* is very much not an assignment of copyright. The difference
(and the
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:02 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/1/5 Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com:
2010/1/4 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Hence not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing. You
give up
the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue.
...
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly*
relevant.
What OSMF requires in the current draft is for you to effectively give up
your copyright altogether. OSMF then copyrights the database as a
On 01/01/10 17:40, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly*
relevant.
What OSMF requires in the current draft is for you to effectively give up
your copyright
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 01/01/10 17:40, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly*
relevant.
What OSMF requires in the
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Gervase Markham wrote:
The new Contributor Terms contain the equivalent of a joint copyright
assignment to the OSMF. That makes this recent article by Michael Meeks
on copyright assignment in free software very relevant:
The new Contributor Terms contain the equivalent of a joint copyright
assignment to the OSMF. That makes this recent article by Michael Meeks
on copyright assignment in free software very relevant:
http://www.gnome.org/~michael/blog/copyright-assignment.html
Of course, not all of the pros and
One issue is that copyright assignment does not work in europe,
the fsfe has worked on some of these issues.
http://www.fsfe.org/projects/ftf/fla.en.html
see also :
http://lwn.net/Articles/359013/
This is how coding/etc. for money works in Europe too -- you retain your
moral rights, but your
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
The new Contributor Terms contain the equivalent of a joint copyright
assignment to the OSMF.
You have said that multiple times already, but I - and, it seems, others
- don't view it that way. You do not assign copyright to OSMF; you only
grant them a license to
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
The new Contributor Terms contain the equivalent of a joint copyright
assignment to the OSMF.
You have said that multiple times already, but I - and, it seems, others
- don't view it that way.
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Where is the actual legal phrasing of this license to sublicense?
In the paragraph just below the actual legal phrasing of the copyright
assignment!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
35 matches
Mail list logo
