Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

I would have to strongly agree with Robert. Matter of fact my position is that we have in the past been too lenient in this respect and should be much more strict going forward matching the growth of OSM and its usage globally. Unluckily the situation that IP law tends to be very territorial and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

On 22 December 2015 at 03:48, Tom Lee wrote: > Point 1 is simple agreement. > > Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every > possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as unlikely > as any). > > Point 3 is the least appealing, but

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

Point 1 is simple agreement. Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as unlikely as any). Point 3 is the least appealing, but I would personally feel comfortable proceeding under the assumption that

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

I got a response: >>- OpenStreetMap (OSM) may use and incorporate NSW data and derived products >>into its database if attribution is provided as previously specified in this >>email chain. >Agree >>- You understand that the OSM database into which the NSW data will be >>incorporated is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of > attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it > would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

On 11 December 2015 at 21:04, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Talking with their legal people it was, or at least as far as I > understood them, their view that the the ODbL style of attribution > (where downstream don't need to provide attribution for any > incorporated or

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as: - questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution requirements in a geo context - the rightsholder has made it clear that they understand downstream

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

On 12 December 2015 at 04:11, Tom Lee wrote: > Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as: > > - questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the > impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution > requirements in a geo context