Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Thread Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer
Hi Tom, Where do I find the sysadmin policy for evaluating whether a blocking request is considered „unreasonable“? There isn't one. I'm not entirely sure what it would say if it existed as it is hard to write such things down in concrete terms as it is by definition a very subjective

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Thread Tom Hughes
On 11/07/11 09:20, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: If you have a better way of defining active contributor that is workable then please tell us what it is. I see no reason to limit the voting right to people who fit the definition of active contributors. The main reason is that otherwise it

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Thread Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer
Hi Kai, One could have given voting rights to all people who have once reached active contributor status and retain sufficient interest in the project to keep their email address up to date and respond to the vote within 3 weeks. I agree. However, Frederick is correct, that this kind of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Thread Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer
Hi tom, The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Thread Tom Hughes
On 11/07/11 09:35, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: Hi tom, The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested and/or contactable and once

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Thread Andrew Harvey
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf which we can't verify as authentic.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Thread John Smith
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Thread Grant Slater
On 11 July 2011 10:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Thread Andrew Harvey
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager Oh, yes. That's

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Thread Grant Slater
On 11 July 2011 11:30, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Thread ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Thread Simon Poole
Am 11.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Grant Slater: The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. .

[OSM-legal-talk] Question regarding compatibility of CC BY SA license versions

2011-07-11 Thread Holger Schöner
Hello, [I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these questions] I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who wants to allow OpenStreetMappers to use these aerial images.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

2011-07-11 Thread 80n
Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list. Apologies. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote: ** If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question regarding compatibility of CC BY SA license versions

2011-07-11 Thread Richard Weait
2011/7/11 Holger Schöner nume...@ancalime.de: Hello, [I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these questions] I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who wants to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases

2011-07-11 Thread David Groom
- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases David, David Groom wrote: This seems to be quite