Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use of auckland city council aerial photos fortracing

2010-11-29 Thread Simon Poole
Simple solution: ask the city council. Simon - Original Message - From: Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:20 AM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] use of auckland city council aerial

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

2010-12-07 Thread Simon Poole
Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of those. This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. The

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

2010-12-07 Thread Simon Poole
say that that is a bad thing. Simon - Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote: The LWG actually knows

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

2010-12-07 Thread Simon Poole
AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2 On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Franics writes: What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are compatible with OSMF and refuse

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

2010-12-08 Thread Simon Poole
Simon Poole wrote: Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer, non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with some degree of certainty is just a joke. Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a small

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

2010-12-08 Thread Simon Poole
] New phrase in section 2 Simon Poole wrote: That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO no reason to believe that it will magically start working

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse?

2010-12-19 Thread Simon Poole
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse? On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: It may be true that tracing aerial images

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?

2010-12-19 Thread Simon Poole
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote None of that even shows that German courts use the term derivative work, let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the definition of that term. It's extremly unlikely that a German court would use English :-). But in the specific case they did

[OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4

2011-03-24 Thread Simon Poole
Thomas Ineichen has been so nice to update the (unofficial) German translation to 1.2.4 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms). There is a small mater of dispute wrt to the intent of the English original in 1 (a): your contribution of data should

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4

2011-03-24 Thread Simon Poole
Francis, have a nice holiday. Simon PS: I'm actually completly with you on the interpretation, the issue is that we have a large body of mappers that are German CS students, that just love arguing subtle points, and in formal specifications must, shall, should, etc. have very different

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

2011-04-08 Thread Simon Poole
Am 08.04.2011 17:05, schrieb Ed Avis: Frederik Rammfrederik@... writes: I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor Terms would still make a lot of sense. Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA would take care of it.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

2011-04-08 Thread Simon Poole
Am 08.04.2011 19:10, schrieb Ed Avis: Simon Poolesimon@... writes: The OSMF has a binding contract with a large number of mappers, representing a substantial part (actually the majority) of the OSM data, that specifies CC-by-SA 2.0, ODbL 1.0 and DbCL 1.0 or a vote on a new license. As I

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

2011-04-17 Thread Simon Poole
Bullshit, in the music industry you grant -exclusive- rights, the CTs stipulate the opposite. Simon Am 17.04.2011 12:06, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's CT only has a rights grant (contributor

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

2011-04-17 Thread Simon Poole
Am 17.04.2011 11:59, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. Some contributors do not want to do *anything* that is related to the legal system in this world.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

2011-04-17 Thread Simon Poole
. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 12:12 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) Undoubtably a very fuzzy one, where a lot of the terms might

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

2011-06-17 Thread Simon Poole
Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the EU you are not in trouble, just if. Simon Am 17.06.2011 16:54, schrieb John

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

2011-07-06 Thread Simon Poole
Am 06.07.2011 20:31, schrieb John Smith: On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use in the digital era, You were talking about databases, however databases can still store

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

2011-07-06 Thread Simon Poole
Am 06.07.2011 23:25, schrieb Andreas Perstinger: BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just reproducing geographical facts like

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

2011-07-06 Thread Simon Poole
Am 07.07.2011 01:40, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in the data they contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on jurisdiction and so on, and my take

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

2011-07-06 Thread Simon Poole
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. Simon Am 07.07.2011 01:54, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: Normally none of them lead to a protected work and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

2011-07-06 Thread Simon Poole
Am 07.07.2011 01:56, schrieb Anthony: ... There certainly is creativity involved in making a brick wall. Choosing a herringbone bond vs. a stretcher bond, for instance. And in some cases it can be copyrightable - not if it's just a herringbone or a stretcher bond, but if the pattern is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

2011-07-06 Thread Simon Poole
In terms of laws, sure. Am 07.07.2011 02:08, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. I didn't know the late 1800s was

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

2011-07-06 Thread Simon Poole
Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters) which doesn't make it recent, but still twice as old as copyright law. The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not moral as you imply. Simon Am 07.07.2011 02:12, schrieb John Smith:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

2011-07-07 Thread Simon Poole
Frederik, I'm fully aware of JS motives and tactics and normally avoid getting sucked in to his endless threads. But it was 2 am and I was just finishing tax returns and associated book keeping. John Smith is a tiny bit more entertaining than that and I needed a short break :-) Simon Am

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

2011-07-08 Thread Simon Poole
Geo-referenced facts? And, all of your examples other even less potential to be a protected work than your typical way. Simon Am 08.07.2011 09:10, schrieb Maarten Deen: On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote: On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote: The idea that the OSM

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. .

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

2011-08-10 Thread Simon Poole
It's not just remapping that effects this, we are still seeing between 60-100 pre-CTs signups accepting the CTs per day without any indication of this slowing down. I expect a couple of 10'000 more before we actually relicense. Simon Am 10.08.2011 09:16, schrieb 80n: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

2011-08-10 Thread Simon Poole
Am 10.08.2011 11:29, schrieb Nic Roets: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmeng.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: PD data does not need a complicated and binding CT as the current one. True. But PD is forward compatible with the CTs. For example, we did not need

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

2011-08-10 Thread Simon Poole
Am 11.08.2011 01:50, schrieb Henk Hoff: ... Just for fun: try reading the Terms of Service of Google, to which you agree every time you use one of its services. I normally refer to http://wikimapia.org/terms_reference.html for ToS for something similar to OSM. Simon

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

2011-08-11 Thread Simon Poole
Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: ... It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about. The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion only is about what license. A license is necessary because we legally need to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

2011-08-12 Thread Simon Poole
Am 12.08.2011 10:27, schrieb Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer: I named my concerns long before the CT were last revised, and I even showed that I was willing to work towards concrete ways to fix these issues. It is not my fault that the issues was nevertheless ignored. Your changes, as has been

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

2011-08-15 Thread Simon Poole
Nobody has claimed that everything leading up to the license changed was handled perfectly, with hindsight I would suspect that a couple of things would have been handled differently by everybody involved. But I have not seen anything that would indicate that the outcome of any such better

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] V1 Object Statistics

2011-08-19 Thread Simon Poole
As was to be expected, there was at least one bug in the script :-/ I've regenerated the tables with the correction and some additional features. Further the worldwide stats are now based on the most recent full history dump. Simon Am 18.08.2011 00:30, schrieb Simon Poole: I've produced

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] V1 Object Statistics

2011-08-24 Thread Simon Poole
are very similar, and there are no larger imports in both countries, contrary for example to the Netherlands). Simon Am 19.08.2011 23:34, schrieb Simon Poole: As was to be expected, there was at least one bug in the script :-/ I've regenerated the tables with the correction and some additional

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

2011-08-24 Thread Simon Poole
Am 24.08.2011 16:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm: ... One of the PD-but-not-CT-people said something like I don't want to give any kind of explicit assurance/permission to OSMF. I.e. they don't want a contract with OSMF. But I think that could be remedied by offering them a differently worded

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

2011-08-24 Thread Simon Poole
. And then I do not even consider that a clicked box in combination with a username and email as an ID does not invariably lead to one person to be kept responsible. Hope I made my point clear. not easy to explain. Gert *Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] *Verzonden:* woensdag 24 augustus

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

2011-08-26 Thread Simon Poole
/User:TimSC) that realized that and tries to fix it. And now the OSMF is supposed to second guess what all the mappers with similar statements really intended to say? Simon Am 26.08.2011 01:23, schrieb Ian Sergeant: Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote on 25/08/2011 05:53:04 PM: Having

[OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

2011-08-31 Thread Simon Poole
Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have made some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to vouch for the data and accept the CTs? At least for mappers that have not explicitly declined the CTs this would seem to be doable without creating a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

2011-09-01 Thread Simon Poole
the point. Outside the right now, the new terms do not logically conflict and provide a rational mechanism for further engagement with the OSM community on what our license should be. Mike On 31/08/2011 12:07, Simon Poole wrote: Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tweeting mappers who have not responded

2011-09-04 Thread Simon Poole
. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: zondag 4 september 2011 13:54 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tweeting mappers who have not responded IMHO at this stage anything goes, so twitter, facebook etc. I do have to say

[OSM-legal-talk] Actual numbers on PD contributions

2011-09-10 Thread Simon Poole
I've produced some numbers to getter a better grip on and if the PD "issue" has any real significance. I found 476 mappers in the PD or CC0 categories, of these (using a simple lower case name comparison), I was able to determine the UID of 375. Obviously there

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Actual numbers on PD contributions

2011-09-10 Thread Simon Poole
Am 10.09.2011 10:01, schrieb Simon Poole: And a total of 42 PD mappers that actually still have V1 objects in the database. Just a small clarification: the 42 (naturally) does not include PD mappers that have accepted the CTs. Simon ___ legal

[OSM-legal-talk] Affect of Remapping on Contributor Terms Acceptance (Numbers!)

2011-09-24 Thread Simon Poole
[Apologies in advance for the HTML formatting] As you may have noticed, the sysadmins were kind enough to generate a new full history dump over the last couple of days. Besides generating new numbers for odbl.poole.ch (which will take some time for the full set), I was mainly interested in

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Effect of Remapping on Contributor TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)

2011-09-24 Thread Simon Poole
happens then. irony OFF Gert *Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] *Verzonden:* Saturday, September 24, 2011 8:56 AM *Aan:* Licensing and other legal discussions. *Onderwerp:* [OSM-legal-talk] Affect of Remapping on Contributor TermsAcceptance (Numbers!) [Apologies in advance for the HTML

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Effect of Remapping on Contributor TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)

2011-09-25 Thread Simon Poole
the community 2 ½ year then. And for contacting 60K mappers, will the community just ignore their opinion and declare them CT-compliant by default ? Or will their data be deleted after 2 ½ years ? Hey OSMF, we need steering here ! Gert *Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] *Verzonden

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

2011-11-16 Thread Simon Poole
We (Switzerland and some parts of Germany) have for example started more or less systematic remapping of anonymous contributions. There is no real hope that a significant amount of this data will be re-licensed by the original mappers, and since these objects pre-date the introduction of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

2011-11-17 Thread Simon Poole
Am 17.11.2011 08:37, schrieb Simon Poole: We (Switzerland and some parts of Germany) have for example started more or less systematic remapping of anonymous contributions. There is no real hope that a significant amount of this data will be re-licensed by the original mappers, and since

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - publishable memo for USA

2011-12-08 Thread Simon Poole
Am 08.12.2011 15:46, schrieb Frederik Ramm: Hi, On 12/08/2011 02:20 PM, Ed Avis wrote: They produced a written report I am intrigued by the joint authorship concept. If that was true (relatively) universally, then we could perhaps use that to force even those who haven't agreed to the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I am not going to remove any old node in my hometown

2011-12-12 Thread Simon Poole
I think you may have misunderstood the whole point of the exercise. While there may be protectable IP in individual contributions depending on jurisdiction, maybe even joint rights in the whole database and we can be fairly sure that the OSM DB would lead to rights wrt EU DB protection

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

2011-12-21 Thread Simon Poole
Please don't confuse the matter by treating tagged and untagged notes the same. If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of other ways) then he is doing exactly that, just because he is reusing an

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

2011-12-21 Thread Simon Poole
Am 21.12.2011 13:34, schrieb Ed Avis: Simon Poolesimon@... writes: If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of other ways) then he is doing exactly that, That is exactly it: improving the geometry of a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

2011-12-21 Thread Simon Poole
Am 21.12.2011 14:15, schrieb Ed Avis: Simon Poolesimon@... writes: If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going to go, so what is your point again? Are we not talking about the following situation: - mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way -

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

2011-12-21 Thread Simon Poole
Am 21.12.2011 14:50, schrieb Ed Avis: Simon Poolesimon@... writes: In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The

[OSM-legal-talk] CLEANMAP global version

2012-01-11 Thread Simon Poole
A number of you have probably already seen CLEANMAP in its original incarnation as announced on Christmas. I've now expanded it to cover the whole planet and have made some further changes (odbl=clean support for example). Please read the wiki page

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Way with almost nothing left but created by decliner

2012-01-13 Thread Simon Poole
Am 13.01.2012 23:42, schrieb Frederik Ramm: Hi, here's an interesting example from the German forum. A way that was created by a decliner but later edited by 10 others; of everything the decliner originally created, only the very first node remains, everything else has been lost in the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

2012-01-19 Thread Simon Poole
Am 19.01.2012 10:53, schrieb Andrew Harvey: . There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to the CTs anyway with the logic

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

2012-02-13 Thread Simon Poole
Am 13.02.2012 14:32, schrieb Frederik Ramm: . - mapper contacts government asking for data - government says here, you can have that, but it may only be distributed under ODbL or CC-BY-SA, nothing else - mapper contributes data to OSM without even *telling* us that there is this additional

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

2012-02-13 Thread Simon Poole
Well essentially CC-by only imposes attribution so it is doable. But in any case: is the import listed in the import catalogue? If not, I would respectfully ask the DWG to summarily delete the data (the enforce bit of my previous posting). Simon Am 13.02.2012 15:22, schrieb Martin

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

2012-02-13 Thread Simon Poole
On the same topic: I've started work on going over the import catalogue (giving a lot of room for stuff that is under discussion or clearly ok (Corine)) and moving entries that either will or should go away with the licence transition (note green is -good- aka will be automatically deleted),

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

2012-02-13 Thread Simon Poole
Am 13.02.2012 17:44, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: (I assume you mean CC-By-SA) Simon, I would like to know what your interpretation of the current Contributor Terms version is, I know what LWG's interpretation is from their meeting minutes and it must be different from your interpretation.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

2012-02-13 Thread Simon Poole
Am 13.02.2012 18:55, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: Take the example of NearMap TOS, tracing NearMap (specially aided by local knowledge) is not something we tend to call an import. It is not an import, but it is an incredible special, special case (and one that is no longer an

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes

2012-03-28 Thread Simon Poole
If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely we would need to see some examples. Simon Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes

2012-03-28 Thread Simon Poole
The v0 rule essentially states that allocating an object in the DB doesn't create IP, so if you have an object that has lost all of the attributes it originally had it is essentially a new object. However in your case that really doesn't apply (IMHO), because what I've seen from your

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes

2012-03-29 Thread Simon Poole
Am 29.03.2012 19:16, schrieb rhn: On a side note, relying on such a decision would be ironic - a lot of data I imported were only a copy of a PD map :) Cheers, rhn Unluckily that the original source was PD doesn't make a difference (legally), what counts is the licence you received the data

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-cz] czech republic: data wrongly marked as ODbL compatible was Re: Hromadné importy změna licence

2012-04-04 Thread Simon Poole
There is a list of incompatbile changesets here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_History_Service/Changeset_Lists#Tainted_Changesets IMHO the best would be for Pavel to accept, but that naturally depends on him. Simon Am 04.04.2012 11:53, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]: Petr Morávek

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government

2012-06-18 Thread Simon Poole
In the case of the ODbL this would depend on the ownership and legal status of the mapping agency (actually it seems as if the ODbL has a tiny issue in that while parent-owned entity is considered non-public and ok, the other way around not, something for 1.1). I don't believe CC by-SA 2.0 has

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Rebuild] Progress update

2012-06-21 Thread Simon Poole
Am 21.06.2012 19:35, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: The huge amount of data is globally not that huge. It is 1.2% of nodes (or so odbl.poole.ch tells me, Actually in real life the damage to nodes is substantially less. On the one hand I don't respect the V0 rule, on the other hand and more

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A license bot that has produced too many errors

2012-07-17 Thread Simon Poole
Am 17.07.2012 13:01, schrieb fk270...@fantasymail.de: The detrimental license bot now has reached Germany and promptly left a lot of errors here. Let's just look at one city, Göttingen in Northern Germany, where I have contacted some undecided users, so I have some knowledge about pre-bot

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US

2012-10-25 Thread Simon Poole
I personally can't see enough wiggle room both in the ODbL and the CTs to make any dataset generated by geocoding and/or reverse geocoding anything else than a derivative database. It is just the ODbL working as intended. We went through a lot of effort to get from a broken to a functional

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL

2013-01-14 Thread Simon Poole
Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman: 1. I used OSM as the basemap for my map of refugee camps, the camp data is my organizations and licensed CC BY-NC. The data for OSM and the camp data is never combined. I release my map under CC-BY-NC. I believe this is okay. All IMHO naturally.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL

2013-01-16 Thread Simon Poole
Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth: On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman: 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

2013-01-18 Thread Simon Poole
Phone currently. Am 18.01.2013 20:04, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/1/18 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz: The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC. are you meeting on IRC or is this a telephone conference? cheers,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

2013-02-28 Thread Simon Poole
The use of the term Database in an intellectual property context has essentially nothing to do with the CS/IT concept of a database. The statement on the wiki is correct, and Alexs statement was a bit misleading. I don't think this discussion has made any progress since the last time it came up.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

2013-03-04 Thread Simon Poole
Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik: How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD Produced Work to credit OSM? Sincerely, This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

2013-03-04 Thread Simon Poole
Am 04.03.2013 13:39, schrieb Jonathan Harley: On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova

2013-03-07 Thread Simon Poole
Bekim The basic issue is likely to be that we never received permission to distribute the original imported data with the ODbL implying that the date had to be removed prior to the licence change. The redaction process was designed to preserve as much work as possible is such situations, but for

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova

2013-03-07 Thread Simon Poole
Am 07.03.2013 17:20, schrieb Bekim Kajtazi: To help understand better, this is how data got into OSM: I digitized the data from topo maps Shared the SHP File with FLOSSK in Prishtina FLOSSK recruited many volunteers to get the data in OSM Few months later data was removed from OSM

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

2013-04-29 Thread Simon Poole
Hi Paul Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission from HGK (with a pointer that the data is freely available elsewhere and that removing it would add up to deleting and re-adding exactly the same data)? Having such permission would seem to be the best solution right now. 2nd

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

2013-04-29 Thread Simon Poole
Am 29.04.2013 10:18, schrieb Paul Norman: From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:58 PM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey Hi Paul Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

2013-04-29 Thread Simon Poole
Am 29.04.2013 11:14, schrieb Henning Scholland: Am 29.04.2013 10:42, schrieb Simon Poole: However in the current case I doubt that there is actually something useful for OSM left once the names are gone. If the information There is a village stays in OSM, it would be useful at all. If you

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

2013-04-29 Thread Simon Poole
Am 29.04.2013 11:27, schrieb Simon Poole: I would agree that there is some value in having naked place nodes. However considering that at best we are talking about 2-3k such nodes surviving it is a question if doing an imagery based add a place drive or similar

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Information for officials and diplomats of countries and entities with disputed territories

2013-07-09 Thread Simon Poole
Sorry for missing the meeting got my times confused, It is a definite yes from me. There is a term in singular that should be plural I believe. But otherwise completely ok with me. Simon Am 09.07.2013 20:38, schrieb Michael Collinson: Simon, Oliver, Dermot and I have give a finally look over

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Information for officials and diplomats of countries and entities with disputed territories

2013-07-09 Thread Simon Poole
It seems as if we inadvertently CC's this to the public legal-talk list and not to the LWG one. Apologies to all. Simon Am 09.07.2013 21:56, schrieb Simon Poole: Sorry for missing the meeting got my times confused, It is a definite yes from me. There is a term in singular that should

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data location?

2013-08-28 Thread Simon Poole
I'm trying to prevent the TrackSource folks from losing interest in OSM. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed

2013-08-29 Thread Simon Poole
Mikel I believe there is a simple solution, please document the source with the full text of the licence or with a statement by the lawyer in question, since the later is unlikely to forthcoming (we probably wouldn't do that either), its going to be the former. I find it quite understandable

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New contributing agency

2013-11-19 Thread Simon Poole
Hi Fernando I gather from your questions that they are currently not distributing the data under a (well-)known licence or on any other documented terms? In any case before spending to much effort on trying to nail down the legal side, you really need to clarify if this is suitable data for OSM

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New contributing agency

2013-11-21 Thread Simon Poole
of visibility. Regards, Fernando On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch mailto:si...@poole.ch wrote: Hi Fernando I gather from your questions that they are currently not distributing the data under

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

2014-01-10 Thread Simon Poole
Am 10.01.2014 07:15, schrieb Clifford Snow: I like the Mapbox solution the author mentions of putting a box on the map to take you to another page. I realize that unless the user clicks on the link, they will never discover that OSM contributed to this product. Since OSM may be only one of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

2014-01-11 Thread Simon Poole
That are not the last board minutes as you know, there are: http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_Minutes_2013-12-10 Am 11.01.2014 10:07, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen: Simon Poole simon@... writes: Am 10.01.2014 07:15, schrieb Clifford Snow: I like the Mapbox

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

2014-01-12 Thread Simon Poole
Apple does not, as far as we know, use OSM data ODbL licensed by the foundation. Simon Am 12.01.2014 13:06, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 10/gen/2014 um 13:01 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: And I'm very tired of people trying to weasel around the absolute minimal requirements we

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

2014-01-14 Thread Simon Poole
Am 13.01.2014 13:17, schrieb Jonathan Harley: . given that the OSM attribution is given equal prominence with their own Terms and their imagery attribution. (By the way, Alex and Eric from MapBox are members of this mailing list.) Surely should be given equal prominence with the map

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

2014-01-14 Thread Simon Poole
I don't actually get a map (tested with three different mobile browsers), now I don't think we want to take our requirements so far that we want OSM attribution on everything :-) Am 14.01.2014 12:38, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 14/gen/2014 um 10:54 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

2014-01-14 Thread Simon Poole
Am 14.01.2014 14:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2014/1/14 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch mailto:si...@poole.ch I don't actually get a map (tested with three different mobile browsers), now I don't think we want to take our requirements so far that we want OSM attribution

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec

2014-02-27 Thread Simon Poole
Am 27.02.2014 01:03, schrieb Luis Villa: ... Note that this is a substantially different task for 4.0 than for 3.0, because 4.0 (particularly BY-SA) now includes a database copyleft clause. Assessing how the ODBL and CC BY-SA 4.0 database clauses interact will be challenging. OSM/Open Data

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] HRS.com uses OpenStreetMap-data without credit

2014-03-14 Thread Simon Poole
Do you have any indication from when the data may be? At least roughly pre/post licence change (pre-licence change data would naturally pose a number of questions)? In general attribution of OSM in the context of non-map uses is not particularly good and hasn't been policed at the same level. We

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Improper Map Use

2014-03-25 Thread Simon Poole
By far not the first and likely not the last, attributing OSM to google. Send them a nice e-mail pointing out openstreetmap.org/copyright and for added brownie points they should include a link to openstreemap.org/fixthemap If they don't react or fix it, send a note to the LWG. Simon Am

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of old media / images / maps

2014-04-04 Thread Simon Poole
Their are quite a few facets of this issue, just some of many: - do you actually have access to an original copy? Obviously who ever is providing access to an online version is completely free to define whatever ToS they want. - sweat of the brow provisions as Eugene mentions - dead for

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey

2014-04-07 Thread Simon Poole
Most has already been said on this topic. Just one comment on the, superficially sane sounding, idea of getting a declaratory judgement: forgetting the ethical side of it (do we really want to use data collected by somebody that doesn't want us to do so?), we would need such a judgement in -every-

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey

2014-04-08 Thread Simon Poole
done so and that we should respect, regardless of legalities*. Simon * depending on jurisdiction this could go far further that copyright, database and contract law, for example unfair competition legislation and so on. Am 08.04.2014 10:23, schrieb Pieren: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Simon

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey

2014-04-08 Thread Simon Poole
Am 08.04.2014 10:55, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2014-04-08 10:39 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch mailto:si...@poole.ch: @Martin It is undoubtedly so that the information in question is -not- simply available for use. You need to invest the time and effort to actually

  1   2   3   >