Hi,
(taking this to legal-talk from talk where it doesn't belong)
On 02/13/12 00:00, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote:
I accepted the license, and also ticked the box that said I was happy with
my contributions to be considered public domain.
Hypothetically, if some years in the
Hi,
On 02/13/2012 12:53 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after
1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is
quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra string
attached to data that is in the
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
2012/2/13 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:
PS: essentially such an import should never get pass the community
discussion part in the first place.
FYI: In Italy there are currently some imports going on, where the
data is licensed cc-by-2.5 and there are also other imports of the
past under this
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
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
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
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),
On 13 February 2012 12:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 1.0
for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is quite as
bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra string attached to
data
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.
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
On 14 February 2012 03:17, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a current licence
terms refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to assume
that it refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 and ODbL
+ DbCL1.0 ,
Am 13.02.2012 12:33, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
This can be read - as Simon seems to do it - to mean the CTs
guarantee that required attribution will survive any future licence
changes, but I think he's on thin ice there; in my reading, the CTs
promise that OSMF will provide attribution, not
On 13 February 2012 18:17, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
