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 potent
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.
Be
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 bu
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 Kathleen!
Cheer
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 for
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 makes it into the main
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 wi
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 where is the imagery
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 wrote:
>>> In any case, getting permi
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 endangers any contribu
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 that require going
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 dis
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 imager
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
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 been a problem with spec
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
16 matches
Mail list logo