On 09/12/2009, at 11:46 AM, Anthony wrote:
A transfer of copyright is a transfer of exclusive rights. In the US, and
probably in other jurisdictions as well, it must be signed and in writing.
One key difference is that someone who is granted a nonexclusive license does
not have the power
On 11/12/09 10:26, James Livingston wrote:
* You wouldn't be able to use data you personally collected, except under the
ODbL (the last part of the second sentence on the second paragraph above).
I believe that the FSF copyright assignment scheme licences your work
back to you once you sign
2009/12/11 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
Some other potential points against using copyright transfer:
* Given one of the arguments against CC-BY-SA is that in some jurisdictions
the data isn't subject to copyright, copyright assignment of the data would
be a bit questionable.
* Businesses
On 12/12/2009, at 7:07 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
But if the foundation wants to have copyright in the data I think
it's trivial for it to have some by doing *some* of the maintenance
edits on behalf of the foundation or one person (or more) transferring
their rights instead of everyone
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 +
A related question is that if a fork happened, could it then be merged back
into the main OSM project?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Yes it does. The LWG sought specific legal advise on this. We wouldn't
be an open project if this was not allowed.
/ Grant
___
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Yes. The fork must be under the ODbL.
(I am not a lawyer, etc.)
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Why not?
The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of
course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Why not?
The code is in svn and has been for ages,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:52 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special
license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM,
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The Contributor Terms actually still aren't clear about what exactly *is*
happening. The ODbL only applies to the database as a whole, not the
individual data. The individual data is supposed to be licensed under a
different
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's
a subtle, but often
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for
19 matches
Mail list logo
