Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
I'd like to note that, just to clarify, factual data is generally not
copyrightable, and so there would be nothing to assign.
Why is it that we are assuming (and I'm not just saying this to Jordan)
that the individual nodes and ways in OSM are factual data? I don't
Frederik Ramm wrote:
If the contract is between OSM and the user, then Foo cannot sue Bar
for breach of contract because they have no contract. (Can my
business sue your business because you use a pirated copy of
Microsoft Windows and thus have an unfair advantage? Unsure but don't
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
It's been proposed by me several times in the past. I think it's
essential. I don't know of a similar major project that doesn't do some
kind of assignment. Wikipedia is the nearest, but Wikipedia is a
collection of articles that all stand on their own.
Can you
A Morris wrote:
Think of it more as watermarking
One could also make a case for their being different levels of severity
of watermark. A completely fictitious street is one thing; a
fictitious wayside cross is another. Although I suppose, for the
watermark to be effective, you would need to
A Morris wrote:
Think of it more as watermarking
One could also make a case for their being different levels of severity
of watermark. A completely fictitious street is one thing; a
fictitious wayside cross is another. Although I suppose, for the
watermark to be effective, you would need to
Frederik Ramm wrote:
[1] even more theoretical aside: maybe we should dual-license to also
say we'll sell you full non-exclusive rights to planet.osm for £5,000
a node ;)
I have a feeling that Rob can't be bought.
I'm pro-copyleft and I'd support this :-) It's clear it would be more
money
Frederik Ramm wrote:
No comments on that by anyone? Rob, Gervase - you're the ones who are
most outspoken about copyleft, would such a solution seem acceptable
to you, or do you need copyleft to the bitter end?
It's not to the bitter end; copyright restrictions fall off after 50
years or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can a community so focused on freedom, he asks, approve of
any restrictions?
This has a fairly simple answer: because such a community is focussed on
maximising the total sum of freedom, distributed freedom and downstream
freedom instead of maximising immediate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can a community so focused on freedom, he asks, approve of
any restrictions?
This has a fairly simple answer: because such a community is focussed on
maximising the total sum of freedom, distributed freedom and downstream
freedom instead of maximising immediate
Michael Collinson wrote:
I echo Tom's sentiment that www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution
http://www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution would be a cleaner public
link to present if possible.
The shorter, the better (sometimes space is limited). So why not, with a
small DNS change:
Robin Paulson wrote:
have i missed something? i thought osm used Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license not Creative Commons Share Alike
2.5 Licence
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OpenStreetMap_License
I assume the name difference was just loose wording; all recent CC
Frederik Ramm wrote:
That's my problem as well. We are not much better than other owners of
geodata. They say:
1. Geodata is very valuable and takes a lot of work to collect and
those who do all the work should be the owners of the data and
dictate under what rules it may be used;
2.
Nathan Vander Wilt wrote:
I am writing a geotagging application that I hope to sell. When I first
found OSM, I was very excited for what I could use it for but as I've
followed the discussions I've become a lot more concerned. While there
are many users who want their work to be fully in
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
If they say but I would really like to do X, if you give me in
writing that I can do X I'll give you $10.000 and print OSM adverts on
every GPS I sell, then we still cannot say it because we're not the
owners of the data.
In Linux that problem is solved by companies
Jeffrey Martin wrote:
Some lists want me to answer on the top and some on the bottom.
Is this a bottom answer email list?
Most email lists will accept the style where you answer below the thing
you are commenting on, but trim it well so people don't have to page
past loads of verbiage to get
Frederik Ramm wrote:
People will ask how do you ensure that OSMF doesn't fall into evil
hands, and you will start to invent boards of directors and boards of
overseers and whatnot, and all these will have to be chosen by some kind
of vote; then you'll have to define who may vote. But then
Mike Collinson wrote:
A good general method is to flip things around, explain what you are
going to do with the data and ask them to contact you by, say, the
end of the month if the use does NOT meet their terms of use.
I think that is both politically and legally extremely unwise. You can't
The question has been raised in these discussions about the ODbL's
reverse-engineering provisions, and their compatibility or otherwise
with share-alike licenses. Here is my analysis and suggestions.
1) The ODbL wishes to prevent people regenerating the Database from
Produced Works.
ODbL
On 14/03/09 20:32, Ulf Möller wrote:
OSFM is trying to get ODbL 1.0 in place as soon as possible and fix
problems in version 1.1 later on.
The difficulty with doing that is that people who are approached about
relicensing their data might say no, because the licence is broken in
ways X, Y and
On 12/05/09 09:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Claiming copyright on something where you are not reasonably sure of
actually having it is, in my eyes, a FUD maneouvre worthy of players
like the OS, but something that we should make an attempt to steer clear of.
The way of avoiding it seeming to be
On 24/06/09 06:56, SteveC wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy_-_Discussion_Draft
The Mozilla project has a privacy policy which I would suggest is rather
friendlier, while still being lawyer-approved - at least, US lawyers.
I'm sure I could arrange for you to be able
On 01/07/09 11:18, Ed Avis wrote:
Can the manually located postboxes, based on OSM data and a list of
postbox street locations from the Royal Mail, be added to OSM?
Yes. But have you checked with Matthew Somerville, the author of that
tool? AIUI it's already integrated with OSM. I did the
On 08/07/09 12:13, Stephen Gower wrote:
Actually, for what it's worth (probably very little) the very original file
is provided as a PDF on the section of
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/location_of_every_post_box_that
marked from Royal Mail Group and dated 13 June 2008. The only reason
On 09/12/09 09:48, Ed Avis wrote:
A related question is that if a fork happened, could it then be merged back
into the main OSM project?
Just like any other ODbL contribution, this could only be done if the
contributors signed the Contributor Terms, or the OSMF agreed to waive
the signing of
On 08/12/09 15:14, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been
said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But
actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA +
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
On 08/06/10 14:58, Tom Hughes wrote:
Can it be fixed?
Nope.
Wow, that really sucks. (Not your fault, of course.) Is there a bug on
file with the mailing list manager software? URLs should be permanent,
particularly to archives. As Frederik's situation points out, this could
be really
On 15/07/10 03:27, Liz wrote:
A majority of *contributors* have not voted, not even a majority of
contributors who edited anything in the last year.
Offering a vote to those who paid a fee in pounds or euros to belong to a
particular organisation (OSMF) and ignoring the far larger group who were
On 12/07/10 16:52, Liz wrote:
Now Gerv, what is your lower limit?
for
number of contributors overall?
number of active contributors
quantity of data?
I do not accept that a decision can be made without the numbers being set
*first*.
OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you
On 05/11/12 17:27, David Prime wrote:
Now, my question is whether I should import this into OSM. Obviously the
data is very useful (every store is categorised: metro, express, extra,
etc) but the licencing situation is murky. Anyone want to weight in on
whether I should do an import?
I know
30 matches
Mail list logo
