On 09/03/09 15:29, Rob Myers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Gervase Markhamgerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 08/03/09 21:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that
time? Since our license can be upgraded to a later version, so can the
On Mar 7, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
4) A Produced Work is not a Derivative Database, and so does not fall
under the ODbL. The ODbL is designed to allow you to license Produced
Works however you choose.
It's not a derivative database until you start to make it such, in
which
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote:
Rob Myers schrieb:
A license which:
- preserves the freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute
and
- requires you to license derivative works under the same license.
That covers CC-BY-NC-SA. ;-)
Is that a problem? The
On 08/03/09 21:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that
time? Since our license can be upgraded to a later version, so can the
list of compatible SA licenses for Produced Works.
We could; but not every SA license is well-known. For maximum
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 08/03/09 21:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that
time? Since our license can be upgraded to a later version, so can the
list of compatible SA licenses for
Andy Allan wrote:
I think without the reverse engineering clause, you may as well
make it PD in the first place..
The previous thread abuses the language. The term reverse
engineering (as used in discussions about GPL or patents) means
to break up a box to see how things work on the
Rob Myers schrieb:
A license which:
- preserves the freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute
and
- requires you to license derivative works under the same license.
That covers CC-BY-NC-SA. ;-)
Is that a problem? The current ODbL covers NC, just not SA.
2009/3/8 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-
gm...@gerv.net wrote:
b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a
massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 13:00 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If someone really wants to jump through these
hoops to get it done, let him do it. I think this will be a niche
application and, if at all, only used very seldom.
And if we later find that someone is really being a thorn in our side
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote:
The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for
CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole.
If you want to close the loophole, you will need to get everyone to
accept the
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote:
The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for
CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole.
If you want to
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
I would be reluctant to name them. Assuming the data remains bound by
some form of share-alike, in 50 years time, OSM or OSM derivatives is
going to be the only database anyone ever uses for storing and
retrieving public global mapping data. At that point, we
The question has been raised in these discussions about the ODbL's
reverse-engineering provisions, and their compatibility or otherwise
with share-alike licenses. Here is my analysis and suggestions.
1) The ODbL wishes to prevent people regenerating the Database from
Produced Works.
ODbL
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
a) GPL and CC-BY-SA compatibility of produced works is more important.
Agreed, but...
b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, either they need a
massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort, or
On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-
gm...@gerv.net wrote:
b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a
massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort
unless they create SVG files that just
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
So what can be done? I agree that reverse engineering is a risk. Life is
not perfect. But still, my suggestion is that we should abandon the idea
of trying to prevent reverse engineering, for the following reasons:
a) GPL and CC-BY-SA compatibility of produced
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
I think without the reverse engineering clause, you may as well make
it PD in the first place..
As I said: You could drop the reverse engineering clause for certain
share-alike licenses only, thus making reverse-engineering into a
share-alike form possible but that
17 matches
Mail list logo
