Essentially it doesn't have any effect wrt your old contributions since
they are not suddenly "un-redacted", so no need to panic.
It would still be a good idea to reset the flag, BUT, legal-talk is
definitely not the right place to get that done. Please simply contact
the system admins.
Simon
Hi,
Kai described my concern with the currect CT wording very well.
Is the LWG still working on a reply?
I am asking because if the LWG is convinced that there is no problem, then we
need to explain our concern is better words.
Olaf
OSMF can't force you to accept them, but if you don't, you
On 19 January 2011 02:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 January 2011 15:48, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
The links below show the wording we will formally release. I will confirm
when it is done. We will then set up and announce mechanism whereby anyone
who has
On 18/01/2011 14:48, Mike Collinson wrote:
The links below show the wording we will formally release.
Thanks Mike. I'll look forward to a derivative of those appearing on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms at some point in the future.
___
On 18 January 2011 15:48, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
The links below show the wording we will formally release. I will confirm
when it is done. We will then set up and announce mechanism whereby anyone
who has accepted the 1.0 terms can upgrade, this will be entirely optional.
Hi Mike,
on December 5, you wrote an email to this list that the words and any party
that receives Your Contents in section 2 were only added because of a cock-up
and you promised to investigate. Now they are in the final text as well, but
not marked as such in the diff marked version.
The
Olaf,
Thanks, it looks like the clean text has been copied from a source other than
the diff-marked text. I've deleted it. We are meeting tonight and I'll stop it
going live until we double-checked the rest of the text too.
Regarding your main concern in
At 04:10 PM 18/01/2011, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
With this new version, do you/others think it is OK for people who have
previously submitted content on which they received a CC-By-SA + ODbL dual
license (taking into account the future license change) to click the accept
button? Cheers
Me,
Mike Collinson wrote:
Yes the OSMF could produce a new set of Contributor Terms but No it could
not force you or other existing contributor to accept them.
Isn't that exactly what the OSMF board has just done? I quote from the
12/12/2010 board minutes:
The OSMF board mandates the LWG to
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:54:04AM +0200, Lars Aronsson wrote:
This is true, but it's also true that what OSM wants is to have
something as similar as possible to GPL, but applied to maps.
I dont - Am i OSM?
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
Mike
thanks for the update.
Regards
David
- Original Message -
From: Mike Collinson
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:20 AM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review
The License Working Group met Tuesday. Most, if
On 23/08/2010 01:34, Richard Weait wrote:
That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the
lawyer)
Thanks Richard. What we could do with from the LWG (and I'm sure that
they will look at doing it) is a here are
On 23 August 2010 01:34, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the
lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not
required for legal-English
On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY
0.1
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM
0.2
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, SomeoneElse
li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY
0.1
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the
lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not
required for
[moved from t...@]
Dave F. wrote:
On 13/08/2010 10:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
...(This is one of the reasons I'm not
greatly enamoured of the upgrade clause in CT 3.)
Am I understanding this correctly?
Of the people that drafted the CT, 50% now don't like it?
The Contributor Terms
Apart from that, this is the version we would like to finalise on and which
has had legal review. Please shout if you see any holes.
Hi Michael,
I wonder if there should not be a clarification that any content provided
should (a) NOT contain material that is false, intentionally misleading, or
Hi,
Mike Collinson wrote:
- defining active contributor as a natural person. This serves the
purpose of no bots. OPEN QUESTION: We are not sure about this one as
this it excludes corporations or other legally organised entities. If
they have multiple accounts for individual staff, it has
Thanks Oliver.
We have a separate project to look at general terms of use of OSM and OSMF
websites where this certainly is an issue. These Contributor Terms are strictly
for the addition of geodata. We have not been advised it has been an issue but
it will do no harm to check explicitly if
On 23/02/10 21:16, Mike Collinson wrote:
- British spelling licence noun used. (can anyone confirm that I am
right in leaving verb license, sublicense as is, I am too long abroad).
That is correct. In standard (British :-) English, licence is the noun
and license is the verb.
- defining
Hi,
Mike Collinson wrote:
can someone sue on the basis of misuse of their
data? Our understanding from Counsel is: Yes. OSMF can on the basis of
collective/database rights. An individual contributor can if it concerns
data that they added.
What would be the legal basis for that?
Say I
On 14 February 2010 19:33, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We are wanting to introduce dual-licensing for *new* registrants as soon as
we have the new Contributor Terms nailed down. That means a final review of
the current wording by legal counsel and then I'll ask for any last(?)
You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder (to
the extent the Contents include any copyrightable elements).
If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and
warrant that You have explicit permission
2009/7/3 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
My point is that granting powers to relicense the data is basically equivalent
to copyright assignment (plus certain conditions, as happens when you assign
copyright to the FSF, they promise to keep to a free licence in the future),
but
it is better to
Hi,
Brendan Barrett wrote:
What happens if someone, with malicious intent, deletes lots of data or
uploads things that cause trouble (e.g. upload Teleatlas data, then tip
off Teleatlas to make trouble). Do we reserve the right to sue them for
damages, and if so, would this agreement be the
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms
Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright
holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission
from the rights holder to distribute
Hi,
Ed Avis wrote:
Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright
holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission
from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you have
explicit
permission from the rights holder to
Hi,
Ed Avis wrote:
ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means
that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot
upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder.
But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Ed Avis wrote:
ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means
that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot
upload it to OSM without express permission of the license
Ed Avis schrieb:
If it is not possible to take one ODbL-licensed work, and combine it
with another ODbL-licensed work to make a third ODbL-licensed work,
then either the ODbL is even worse than it first appears, or the
proposed OSM implementation of it is flawed.
The ODbL certainly allows
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
if it's in the public domain then you already have permission from the
copyright holder. also, having permission from the rights holder to
distribute under License X is the same thing as having permission from
the rights holder to submit the content, no?
Well,
2009/7/3 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
Should say: You agree to only add contents for which you are the copyright
holder, *or which are in the public domain*, *or which already have permission
from the rights holder to distribute under Licence X*, or where you
33 matches
Mail list logo
