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

As a general concern, yes, having nailed down how we attribute on the website is a bit of a pain and from a practical view will require that we provide the links indefinitely. And yes references to the ODbL and/or a specific version of it (including importing ODbL data) in an agreement could

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

Hi Blake, Sorry for dropping this thread. Which generic waiver exactly are you referring to? The purpose of these templates is for data providers who are concerned about attribution being provided properly. It may be that some providers do not care, in which case a less specific waiver may work.

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

Hi Simon, Kathleen, all, Is there any concern that the specific exemptions for cc-by 4 and some extent 2/3, which specifically mention the attribution method and URL, license and version number, will cause an issue should the means of OSM attribution or the license change (even a version number

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

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.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates > > Thanks again to Kathleen Lu for drafting this. > > Simon Thank you very much Simon and

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, no need

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 21 January 2017, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote: >> > However care should be taken that the mapper is in a solid >> > situation when using the data independent of the question if >> > his/her work actually

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

On Saturday 21 January 2017, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote: > > However care should be taken that the mapper is in a solid > > situation when using the data independent of the question if > > his/her work actually makes it into the main OSM database. In the > > past this has often been a problem

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

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

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > Blake where is the imagery provider in question based? > United States Cheers blake > Simon > > > Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM: >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole

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 and

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

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 and endangers any contributions based on so > licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause > issues

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

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

Am Sa, 21.01.2017, 16:04 schrieb Simon Poole: > 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

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] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > However care should be taken that the mapper is in a solid situation > when using the data independent of the question if his/her work > actually makes it into the main OSM database. In the past this has > often

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

On Saturday 21 January 2017, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote: > > We are working with an imagery provider who is going to release some > of their imagery under cc-by-nc 4.0, and with a specific allowance > for it to be used for digitizing into OSM. Our general aim should be to get image providers to

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

Greetings, We are working with an imagery provider who is going to release some of their imagery under cc-by-nc 4.0, and with a specific allowance for it to be used for digitizing into OSM. Their main goal as I understand it, is to make sure their imagery is cc-by-nc 4.0, but they are fine if it