Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new
licences and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a
guarantee beyond doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will
still be okay.
For me, as a PD
On 11/22/2010 07:24 PM, Kevin Peat wrote:
Are there any concrete examples of share-alike actually benefitting
OSM?
There's at least one major data contribution that came about because of
BY-SA I believe.
It seems like a good thing for software projects but for OSM I
don't really see the
.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Best-license-for-future-tiles-tp5747363p5762573.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes:
It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike' come
from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I,
too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on?
Basically, OSM has several outspoken
On 22 November 2010 18:32, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
it was simply assumed right from the outset that share-alike is
the 'consensus'...
Are there any concrete examples of share-alike actually benefitting OSM? It
seems like a good thing for software projects but for OSM I don't really
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes:
It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike'
come
from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I,
too, would prefer public domain over
Hi,
Kevin Peat wrote:
Are there any concrete examples of share-alike actually benefitting
OSM? It seems like a good thing for software projects but for OSM I
don't really see the benefit.
One of the benefits massively touted by some Australian project
members (but also, less loudly, by
On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights that
the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.
When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the
database rights in some versions), I
Anthony o...@... writes:
So a license from, say, MapQuest,
granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
MapQuest's copyright,
...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data,
Well, depends on what you
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say*
you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM.
As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't
covered by BY-SA.
Is the data covered by ODbL? If you recreate the data is it covered by ODbL?
___
legal-talk
On 11/19/2010 11:22 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
Anthonyo...@... writes:
On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA,
if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL.
Right. (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here
disagree with.)
At length. ;-)
-
Anthony,
On 11/19/10 14:38, Anthony wrote:
If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
extract of data.
You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works
that way and see if OSMF sue
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
extract of data.
You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works
that way and see if OSMF sue me.
Sure
On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
the text) you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
the ODbL does not *say* you can do so.
It contains, in combination with the DbCL,
On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL
doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.
And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic open in front of me, I
can't find any mention of the words map,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL
doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.
And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
the text) you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
the ODbL does
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the
better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one.
If, however, you intend to protect our data by putting it under a
share-alike
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.
When I'm given a set of tiles under a
Oops.
Sorry about that. :-(
- rob
Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
rights that the CC
On 18 November 2010 10:19, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
That's what you say, and I hope it is true. But others claim different
things;
some say that even once the work such as a printed map has been produced and
distributed under CC-BY-SA or even CC0 terms, it is still tainted somehow,
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes:
this is in my view one of the big problems with
the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about
what it permits you get four answers.
One problem is that where there is no contractual relationship (as
there wouldn't be further down
On 11/18/2010 10:19 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
Rob Myersr...@... writes:
Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least under
some interpretations. It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public
domain one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an
attribution requirement is more reasonable.)
If someone tries to
Hi,
On 11/18/10 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
(I believe that the reasonably calculated in 4.3 imposes a downstream
requirement as part of this: in other words, you must require that
attribution is preserved for adaptations of the Produced Work, otherwise you
have not reasonably calculated
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes:
Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3).
Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your
friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back
together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not
Anthony o...@... writes:
One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say*
you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
To the extent that you are allowed to offer a license on a Produced
Work, that license only applies to *your contribution* to the Produced
Work.
On 11/18/2010 05:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Rob Myersr...@... writes:
We can produce a CC licenced set of map tiles from ODbL data. But we
cannot use those to make a Lady Gaga score or the original ODbL
database.
Actually, you can use them to produce a Lady Gaga score, if you somehow
managed to
On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say different
things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit. And it's not some
abstract conundrum but part of the everyday business of the project - rendering
data into map tiles
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an
entirely separate issue.
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data
but you do get a licence to all copyright interest
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say
different
things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit. And it's not some
abstract conundrum but part
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
The point is this. The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence
in the work.
Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot.
Yes - but the licence does cover copyright in the particular work that you
received (in this case a printed map, say).
Anthony o...@... writes:
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
map you received
As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor
terms, you aren't allowed to grant a
Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion
of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally
recreated in this scenario?
I don't think it will be possible to accidentally reverse engineer the
DB, and if you intentionally reverse engineer it,
Hi,
On 18 November 2010 17:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 02:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
produced map tiles, so they
Martin,
M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
But a map is (this might have to be looked at for the individual case)
not only a work but can constitute a database at the same time. If you
are able to reconstruct a database with substantial parts of the
original database by re-engineering if from the map,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
map you received
As you have correctly pointed out
On 11/18/2010 01:32 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Rob Myersr...@... writes:
It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public
domain one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an
attribution requirement is
.]... the Produced Work. At least one
person disagrees with me here. :) )
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Best-license-for-future-tiles-tp5747363p5751683.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
You would not imagine the record company saying on the one hand 'yes, you can
make short clips of our music and release them as CC-BY' but on the other hand
'no, if you try to exercise the rights granted by the CC-BY licence
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain?
Indeed. But I think that you are right that this is a side note. Why
not start that discussion on the wiki, or in a separate thread here?
I've changed the
Richard Weait rich...@... writes:
As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain?
What would be your preference for the future tile license? Ed, do you
have a preferred future tile license?
I don't think that is the important question. If the OSM project's licence
says
2010/11/17 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any
compatibility problem.
PD but still with certain conditions respected: no re-engineering,
attribution, etc. like requested by the OdbL? As far as I understand
this, while the tiles
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone
tracing
from a Produced Work? I
2010/11/17 Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?
A database of pixels? I would not regard a printed map as a database.
And neither would I the electronic
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes:
2010/11/17 Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?
A database of pixels? I would not regard a printed
The person doing the tracing is a lawful recipient of a cc-by-sa licensed
work. It will have the correct ODbL attribution, but there will be no
indication that they have any obligations to that license. The only license
they have agreed to is cc-by-sa and that permits tracing.
The producer of
49 matches
Mail list logo
