Re: [OSM-legal-talk] share-alike on generalized data?

On 06/02/16 11:32 AM, Tobias Wendorff wrote: > > Sure, I understand that. But I thought the main concept behind share-alike > is to make data better by foreign "investitions". In general the idea of share-alike is to make sure that downstream users of data have the same ability to work with the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

On 28/12/15 01:23 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > > Perhaps continued copyleft fragmentation is even in the (near term > anyway) interest of OSM in order to encourage all others to use > maximally permissive licenses. This wouldn't help OSM due to the contributor agreement. - Rob.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

I don't understand this objection. If a company accidentally publishes something that's a problem with their procedures, not any license (free or proprietary). On 23 September 2015 15:32:06 GMT-07:00, Alex Barth wrote: >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Simon Poole

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

On 2015-09-22 16:38, Paul Norman wrote: I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's independent of the metadata guideline. On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map"

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On 2015-09-22 16:26, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/11/14 02:11 PM, Alex Barth wrote: We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share alike to show for, Then clearly OMS should have stuck with BY-SA for the database, as that did gain third party data releases. but

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/10/14 04:32 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ... What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper supporting their

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/08/14 01:58 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion. The page asserts: Geocodes are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 30/07/14 08:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Il giorno 30/lug/2014, alle ore 16:44, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com mailto:a...@mapbox.com ha scritto: your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a pair of coordinates is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25/07/14 04:38 PM, Jake Wasserman wrote: I agree that geocoded private data must be allowed to stay private. The ODbL goes to great lengths to explain that it only covers publicly released data. At a minimum, we need to find a way to say

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 14/07/14 06:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Taking a step back here. What do we want? From conversations around dropping share alike my impression was that there was a consensus around unlocking geocoding - even among share-alike advocates. Just

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

On 05/05/14 09:16 AM, Simon Poole wrote: We have raised the question of Dynamic Data in a dedicated guideline given that a number of things are not so clear and even while, using the example from the guideline, the occupancy of a parking lot is an observable fact it is questionable if we

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

On 03/05/14 08:51 AM, Michael Collinson wrote: Geocoding: So I have to share a patient's medical record because it is geocoded against OSM? Who with? Dynamic Data: So if I use OpenStreetMap car park location data, I have to share the real-time occupancy data? Who with? Algorithmic

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

On 30/04/14 03:18 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered it. The users of the data may want it. The

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

On 30/04/14 02:35 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: I think there is quite a bit of data that will, with high likelihood, never be of use to anyone. That's especially true for byproducts of the creation of a produced work. It's been of use to at least one person. The person who created the produced

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

On 28/04/14 11:42 AM, Steve Coast wrote: In a narrow way, this all a good thing. It shows the growth and maturity of the project, that there are those out there that want to own it or take all the advantages without even saying where the data came from. But in the end, we have to defend

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

On 17/02/14 11:33 PM, Paul Norman wrote: Many of the companies failing to meet attribution requirements are using OpenStreetMap data for the majority of their map data, and sometimes have no attribution at all. The OpenStreetMap requirements are less onerous than alternative commercial

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

On 03/10/13 10:06 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 03/10/13 17:21, Rob Myers wrote: On 03/10/13 04:32 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 02/10/13 18:59, Rob Myers wrote: Is it possible to have a BY-SA 4.0 Produced Work? It's possible to give a produced work derived from OSM any license you like

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

On 03/10/13 04:32 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 02/10/13 18:59, Rob Myers wrote: Is it possible to have a BY-SA 4.0 Produced Work? It's possible to give a produced work derived from OSM any license you like (if that's what you mean?) so long as it retains OSM's attribution. Including all

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

On 01/10/13 03:48 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 01/10/13 06:01, Stephan Knauss wrote: On 01.10.2013 06:28, Pekka Sarkola wrote: Questions: Is CC-BY-4.0 compatible with OSM current license (ODbl)? If data is released under CC-BY-4.0: can we import it to OSM? To my understanding not even ODbL

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [cc-community] a legal framework of open (geo)data

Original Message Subject: [cc-community] a legal framework of open (geo)data Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:22:53 +0200 From: Simone Aliprandi simone.alipra...@gmail.com Reply-To: cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org To: cc-community cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org A legal framework of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:36:48 -0500, Alex Barth wrote: On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman wrote: The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0100 (CET), Olov McKie wrote: As I understand our license change, it can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

On 28/02/13 00:17, Frederik Ramm wrote: As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you from prohibiting stuff! 3 - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

On 27/02/13 20:24, Marc Regan wrote: I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. +1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud of uncertainty around what you can

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

On 27/02/13 21:19, Rob wrote: Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is not an option. And I'd like you to make me a sandwich. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote: It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative databases. That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You just can't prohibit people from using them freely. - Rob.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining Creative Commons Licensed Data with ODbL and Redistributing

On 28/11/12 12:37, Kate Chapman wrote: I don't believe that would apply to a derivative work, I think that just applies to the work itself. I'm interested to hear other interpretations though. It's not particularly coherent given the obvious intent of the licence, but I think the anti-TPM

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

On 10/31/2012 09:20 PM, James Livingston wrote: there isn't really a clear line between a permanent database and a transient structure. Other than that the former can be made available and the latter cannot (practically speaking). - Rob. ___

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

On 10/30/2012 07:19 AM, Igor Brejc wrote: Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative Databases. They also cannot request RAM dumps of the routers and switches that ODbL data is transmitted over as they download it. - Rob.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data

On 09/20/2012 08:46 PM, Mike Dupont wrote: that sounds more like my conclusion, it is the end of the road for share alike and sharing for osm. basically it is turning into a dead end road. What in the hoof are you talking about? - Rob. ___

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible

On 08/10/2012 07:25 AM, Mike Dupont wrote: Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in the USA cannot legally sign the CT anyway because the would have to ask the employeer for permission. If you have signed a NDA you might be affected, some companies claim all employees

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work

On 07/24/2012 08:19 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: Hello, ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the original database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate part of it. Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your responsibilities due

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work

On 07/24/2012 10:01 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: Hello, doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license? You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work

On 07/24/2012 08:51 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: Hello, ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the original database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate part of it. Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your responsibilities due to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)

On 04/04/2012 01:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote: I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view, is that it be interoperable with the ODbL. I recommend that people define compatible and interoperable thoroughly when discussing them, as they can mean different things in different

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)

On 04/07/2012 07:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/07/2012 07:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

On 06/03/12 18:07, Michael Collinson wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL3a. I would like to use OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you? I recommend Map tiles copyright OpenStreetMap, licenced CC-BY-SA, as that works better with BY-SA's requirement of a copyright

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

On 06/03/12 20:30, Mike Linksvayer wrote: I also recommend using the *word* copyright rather than (c), as it is my understanding that the English word has international legal weight but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't. That's the oddest thing I've read today. Really?

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is the license change easily reversible?

On 19/02/12 11:17, Frederik Ramm wrote: But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple majority board decision for that. Yep. And 2.0 could then be upgraded to a higher version with the next planet dump.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

On 29/01/12 23:11, Mike Dupont wrote: My understanding of copyleft is the idea that people who own the rights to their own work license it freely. They do so in free recognition that their contingent power should not constrain the fundamental freedom of others. That is, they recognise the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

On 19/01/12 09:51, Mike Dupont wrote: Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury If you cannot accept the CTs please don't. Nobody wants you to make a false representation. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing the license

On 12/12/11 16:08, Michael Collinson wrote: We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our contributor terms [1] and summary [2] . Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, my initial thought it that it is more

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

On 29/11/11 22:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: IMHO there is a difference between a travel photo and a map rendering. This is a jpeg: http://www.tnooz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ITA-QR-code-1.jpg This is a perfect example of the difference between the content and the structure of a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

Eugene Alvin Villar seav80@... writes: The European definition of a database is a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means. Which really, really should be the end of this. A

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material

On 26/11/11 23:43, Nic Roets wrote: Rob, I'm not sure what you mean. So I'm going to give a simple example. Suppose someone has a table with museums and their capabilities. He then combines it with OSM to create a map. If the capabilities is something opaque like type1 and type2, then the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material

On 25/11/11 11:07, Nic Roets wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net mailto:rich...@systemed.net wrote: 3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful source data. (ODbL does.) I honestly doubt that ODbL will achieve

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - initial results

On 09/09/11 22:33, Ed Avis wrote: Rob Myers rob@... writes: In the US, the two lawyers found that the OSM map data is copyrightable. They mentioned the explicit inclusion of maps in copyright law But geodata is not a map, and the copyright on the database is not the copyright on its

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - initial results

On 09/09/11 15:57, Ed Avis wrote: In the US, the two lawyers found that the OSM map data is copyrightable. They mentioned the explicit inclusion of maps in copyright law But geodata is not a map, and the copyright on the database is not the copyright on its contents. My barrister in the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

On 15/08/11 22:16, Florian Lohoff wrote: I have contributed a lot for nearly 3 years and now i am blocked out so i am not contributing anymore and i ceased all my OSM work already. Since your contributions are PD and therefore CT compatible I don't understand what the problem is. - Rob.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

On 14/08/11 18:14, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: If the sysadmins block your account The sysadmins have not blocked your account. The system has been changed to implement the licence changeover plan. You may not like the plan, but neither its form nor the effects of its implementation are

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

On 11/08/11 16:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: I see no difference in re-publishing text, as in our email lists and the database, properly citing Google as source. You are correct. Both are breaches of copyright where it applies. There are two important differences

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

On 27/07/11 16:43, Tobias Knerr wrote: And why the hurry? If this is a hurry I'd hate to see stalling. :-) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

On 08/07/11 10:31, Maarten Deen wrote: IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention. And highway value is certainly not

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

On 08/07/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That designation can change

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

On 07/07/11 20:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: +1 /2 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

On 01/07/11 09:43, Tobias Knerr wrote: The only motivation for data SA I can somewhat understand is to open up data that can be contributed back to OSM. Sharealike is meant to guarantee that the individual users of the produced work have the same freedom to work with the data as the person

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

On 01/07/11 10:51, Jonathan Harley wrote: I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being naive. It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many different ways, including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with additional contents in the form of already

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License compatibility clarification

On 24/06/11 20:35, Jonas Häggqvist wrote: Is the CT/ODbL compatible with CC-BY-SA? No. Notably, the ODbL isn't. Say if an organization releases some data under CC-BY-SA, could we use it (in the CT/ODbL future)? No, as it's incompatible with the ODbL. For extra credit, explain why/why

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 17/06/11 09:34, Steve Bennett wrote: Also, a question I should probably know the answer to: is ODbL considered compatible with CC-BY-SA? Can you relicense something that is CC-BY-SA as ODbL? (I guess the answer must be yes, but could someone confirm?) The answer is no, unless the person

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote: So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from, Do read the discussions I had with odc-discuss when someone asked about this before:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 17/06/11 15:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM, which would prevent their uses. Does that mean that only the older licenses can be used for produced works?

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced work and so on. It's a novel concept, to be sure. but if you want to understand it better you can always ask the licence's authors on odc-discuss.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Navigon to Sell OpenStreetMap POIs Packages for PNDs

On 14/06/11 15:03, Richard Fairhurst wrote: andrzej zaborowski wrote: That means we can mix it with OSM, but not contribute it back to OSM because the new contributor terms don't allow using ODbL licensed data. The standard Contributor Terms don't have to be the only Contributor Terms.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

On 08/06/11 17:59, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: the claim that everyone who likes the Share-Alike-principle is a fanatic. I'm certainly a copyleft fanatic, but I'm sure there are some entirely reasonable copyleft proponents as well. - Rob. ___

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

On 07/06/11 12:37, Ed Avis wrote: Matt Amos zerebubuth@... writes: i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from Creative Commons itself! I would be interested to read that. Science Commons certainly used to say that the licences

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means

On 06/06/11 14:52, Maarten Deen wrote: But the current action is: accept or lose the ability to map. That is close to coercion and not a valid base to claim that 2/3's agree to this. It is not anywhere near coercion. OSM is not the state, and you can map wherever else you like. - Rob.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license for Wiki Loves Monuments

On 05/14/2011 06:01 PM, Mike Dupont wrote: Funny, based on my last question, the OSM will not be able to use cc-by-sa data in the future. Hence the question, I imagine. :-) PDDL/CC0 for the data would avoid this question, or dual-licencing ODbL/BY-SA might be good. - Rob.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

On 19/04/11 11:18, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Instead he original phrase sounds hostile to me... what about you ? The rights need to be granted in that way so they can be passed on to users. So, no, it doesn't sound hostile. It sounds like it makes the operation of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

On 04/18/2011 10:06 PM, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered open knowledge according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . Since this is often a deciding factor for

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

On 17/04/11 09:51, Florian Lohoff wrote: But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of copyright is a no go for some. GCC has hardly been unsuccessful, though. Apache either. - Rob. signature.asc

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?

On 17/04/11 14:17, Francis Davey wrote: Clause 4(b) permits the distribution of the work under certain other licences, including Creative Commons Compatible Licence(s). Its a bafflingly drafted licence (if I may say) since it also says You may not sublicense the Work (in clause 4(a)) which

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

On 04/17/2011 04:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: And if OSMF (whoever they may be)wants that to be the case, I step out. That seems a reasonable resolution. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

On 08/04/11 07:55, Ed Avis wrote: I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could just keep on mapping.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24/03/11 13:13, Simon Poole wrote: The issue wrt to the wording is if to use a strong must not infringe vs. a weak should not infringe (in the German translation). This would be an issue if the document stated that it uses the definitions

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone ought to do something ... dealing with violations of OSM's geodata license

On 03/21/2011 06:31 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Effectively policing *any* license would very likely require a *multiple* of OSMF's whole current budget. The FSF has one paid compliance officer to look after the whole of GNU and any other cases that they get involved in. gpl-violations.org is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

On 02/03/2011 10:13 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent. BY-SA is not a permissive or gift economy licence, it is a copyleft licence. Its intent is precisely to ensure that the freedom to use the work is inalienable. Making it impossible

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

On 02/02/2011 05:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and co-dependency - the question of does the overlaid stuff work without the map. So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain point in the map, and your photo

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

On 02/02/2011 05:49 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote: I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to paper or to a screen, changes the bits used; if you take that as the Where multiple sources of bits are combined to produce a single new work, that new work is a derivative

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

On 02/02/2011 06:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote: So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not available on an open license even if the context of the two images is completely different? The context

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

On 02/02/11 20:02, Peter Miller wrote: I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very Courts have seen it that way in the case of Shepher Fairey, Jeff Koons, Andy Warhol, Richard Prince, The Beastie Boys, and many other artists and musicians. unhelpful view for the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

On 02/02/11 15:59, Jonathan Harley wrote: By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long Oh I see, I didn't realise that's the wording of the licence. That's an unfortunate turn of phrase then.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons

On 21/01/11 00:02, Kai Krueger wrote: I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't missrepresent anyone. I am *very* glad that CC are now publicly acknowledging the harm that Science Commons has caused. I don't know how far CC can go with the 4.0 licences, but Mike's

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 01/06/2011 12:47 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 01/06/11 11:29, Richard Fairhurst wrote: hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon, which is explicitly compatible with ODbL. They switched today. :) How can they do that without discussing it for four years in

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 01/06/2011 07:14 PM, Mike Collinson wrote: At 05:04 PM 6/01/2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (Rather coincidentally, this was published today: http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/06/ownership/ ) What a beautifully apt cartoon! Yes, I wish I'd found it. :-) - Rob.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006

On 05/01/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: These points are not relevant. Once OSM continues under new license and CT (as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn. Why? - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Peter Miller wrote: I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with the new license. OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?

On 21/12/10 10:51, Andrew Harvey wrote: I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing imagery cannot be distributed under this license,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?

On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote: What is the German equivalent of a 'derived work'? And, if you're saying it's different, then how can you say it's equivalent? Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions adaptation rather than derived work. Your referring to derived work is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Defining free and open (Re: CT clarification: third-party sources)

On 11/12/10 17:27, Simon Ward wrote: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote: Why leave it undefined? To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means that if the community could always say It's the OKD, stupid!. :-) Ok, well I guess I’m trying to say

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

On 11/12/10 18:31, Simon Ward wrote: Then I don’t know how to argue against fear (or rationale based on fear). Do you have any pointers? :) My argument is neither motivated by fear nor requires fear in order to make the point that I believe it does. And I do not believe that the general

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

On 11/12/10 03:26, Simon Ward wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote: On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Meme. I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was explicitly referenced. I don't think the future

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

On 11/12/10 12:10, Simon Ward wrote: You think: OSM should not be limited by an external definition. OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting, You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a good idea for OSMF to reference it). I can’t

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote: I think it is unnecessary to leave it wide open. free and open doesn't leave it wide open. I don’t necessarily want relicensing to be prevented, but I think doing it should be discouraged. The Wikipedia relicensing was similarly a big effort, and they

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

On 11/12/10 13:14, Simon Ward wrote: So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred I would certainly hope not. I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again: Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use, analyse, modify, and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote: If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible. This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as “free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined. But we don't know the possible licence. It may not yet

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote: If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors, then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a change. It should be substantially harder, not

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: Rob Myers schrieb: Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions. WHAT about IANAL in my

  1   2   3   4   >