Essentially it doesn't have any effect wrt your old contributions since
they are not suddenly "un-redacted", so no need to panic.
It would still be a good idea to reset the flag, BUT, legal-talk is
definitely not the right place to get that done. Please simply contact
the system admins.
Simon
Sorry to bring this up again, but I accidentally accepted the contributor
terms on my h4ck3rm1k3 account
and I cannot do that because not all the data that I had there is cleared
for the new license. I stopped using that account a while back.
I would like to have the settings turned back.
I tried
There are some errors in the Italian translation of the
contributor terms https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms
License names contains typos:
* ODbl sould be ODbL (the case)
* DdCL should be DbCL (b instead of d)
The phrase le quali saranno si intenderanno approvate con il
voto should be
Hi,
Kai described my concern with the currect CT wording very well.
Is the LWG still working on a reply?
I am asking because if the LWG is convinced that there is no problem, then we
need to explain our concern is better words.
Olaf
OSMF can't force you to accept them, but if you don't, you
On 19 January 2011 02:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 January 2011 15:48, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
The links below show the wording we will formally release. I will confirm
when it is done. We will then set up and announce mechanism whereby anyone
who has
On 18/01/2011 14:48, Mike Collinson wrote:
The links below show the wording we will formally release.
Thanks Mike. I'll look forward to a derivative of those appearing on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms at some point in the future.
___
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:54:04AM +0200, Lars Aronsson wrote:
This is true, but it's also true that what OSM wants is to have
something as similar as possible to GPL, but applied to maps.
I dont - Am i OSM?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
The License Working Group met Tuesday. Most, if not all, comment at the moment
is on the Contributor Terms. Therefore we will devote next week's meeting (Aug
31) entirely to going though each issue already raised. We will then pass these
on to legal counsel for review. When we get a response,
Mike
thanks for the update.
Regards
David
- Original Message -
From: Mike Collinson
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:20 AM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review
The License Working Group met Tuesday. Most
On 23/08/2010 01:34, Richard Weait wrote:
That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the
lawyer)
Thanks Richard. What we could do with from the LWG (and I'm sure that
they will look at doing it) is a here are
Liz,
You asked about the early intent of the Contributor Terms before they were
re-written by legal counsel. As promised:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY
0.1
On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY
0.1
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM
0.2
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, SomeoneElse
li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY
0.1
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the
lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not
required for
At 01:14 13/08/2010, Liz wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal
review from OSMF's lawyers...
Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal
review from OSMF's lawyers...
Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more in-line with
what is now the
terms that consider these points.
Regards,
Oliver
--
View this message in context:
http://n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Contributor-Terms-latest-tp4621828p4621966.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing
Hi,
Mike Collinson wrote:
- defining active contributor as a natural person. This serves the
purpose of no bots. OPEN QUESTION: We are not sure about this one as
this it excludes corporations or other legally organised entities. If
they have multiple accounts for individual staff, it has
We are wanting to introduce dual-licensing for *new* registrants as soon as we
have the new Contributor Terms nailed down. That means a final review of the
current wording by legal counsel and then I'll ask for any last(?) comments
from this list.
We've made some changes in order to try and
Hi,
Mike Collinson wrote:
can someone sue on the basis of misuse of their
data? Our understanding from Counsel is: Yes. OSMF can on the basis of
collective/database rights. An individual contributor can if it concerns
data that they added.
What would be the legal basis for that?
Say I
On 14 February 2010 19:33, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We are wanting to introduce dual-licensing for *new* registrants as soon as
we have the new Contributor Terms nailed down. That means a final review of
the current wording by legal counsel and then I'll ask for any last(?)
You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder (to
the extent the Contents include any copyrightable elements).
If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and
warrant that You have explicit permission
Two related things on Contributor Terms:
[80n on share-alike]
By comparison, ODbL+Contributor Terms has properties that break
this principle. A derived work can not be fed back into OSM unless
the author agrees to the contributor terms.
Matt set up a poll at
2009/7/3 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
My point is that granting powers to relicense the data is basically equivalent
to copyright assignment (plus certain conditions, as happens when you assign
copyright to the FSF, they promise to keep to a free licence in the future),
but
it is better to
Hi,
Brendan Barrett wrote:
What happens if someone, with malicious intent, deletes lots of data or
uploads things that cause trouble (e.g. upload Teleatlas data, then tip
off Teleatlas to make trouble). Do we reserve the right to sue them for
damages, and if so, would this agreement be the
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms
Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright
holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission
from the rights holder to distribute
Hi,
Ed Avis wrote:
Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright
holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission
from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you have
explicit
permission from the rights holder to
Hi,
Ed Avis wrote:
ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means
that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot
upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder.
But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Ed Avis wrote:
ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means
that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot
upload it to OSM without express permission of the license
Ed Avis schrieb:
If it is not possible to take one ODbL-licensed work, and combine it
with another ODbL-licensed work to make a third ODbL-licensed work,
then either the ODbL is even worse than it first appears, or the
proposed OSM implementation of it is flawed.
The ODbL certainly allows
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
if it's in the public domain then you already have permission from the
copyright holder. also, having permission from the rights holder to
distribute under License X is the same thing as having permission from
the rights holder to submit the content, no?
Well,
31 matches
Mail list logo
