On 7 January 2011 21:56, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
In the case of Nearmap, it is my understanding, Ben might like to comment
or contradict, that level 1 is livable with. The real concern being the
possible that future OSM generations might want to drop share-alike.
It's indeed
davespod wrote:
If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct,
then ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced
works (e.g., maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database.
I'm restating what I said in
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes:
[OS OpenData licence]
But that isn't a problem now.
Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state
Does that mean it's still incompatible with version 1.0 of the contributor
terms?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
Richard wrote:
For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I
have checked and no, the OS
OpenData licence does not refer to pubic sector information. [...]
Oops! It may read as a sense of humour failure, but it was actually a
literacy failure. Maybe, therefore,
On 8 January 2011 20:37, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct, then
ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced works (e.g.,
maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database.
At 08:36 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 05:25, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to
do with the end user license:
4. At Your or the copyright owners holders option, OSMF agrees to
attribute You
On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
requirement. Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes
I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others,
published data under the same/similar license.
At 02:20 PM 7/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
requirement. Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes
I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others,
published data under the same/similar license.
On 8 January 2011 01:33, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
The practice appears limited to Australia and New Zealand. The last figures
I compiled for OSM data imports are:
From what I've been told privately by people on the inside is that
they're not happy that they've been encouraged to
Mike Collinson wrote:
Thanks, David. Bother. Either it refers only to Royal Mail-tainted
Code-Point data as immediately above the text or the OS are pulling
a fast one by re-writing the OGL ... making it effectively their old
problematic license. Assuming the latter we'll need to lobby.
On 8 January 2011 03:12, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state You are indicating that, as
far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute
those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). They also
John Smith wrote:
Erm doesn't that invalidate the flexibility or relicense in future
people keep going on about?
I think Mike already answered that one at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005716.html
.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
davespod wrote:
Richard wrote:
Mike Collinson wrote
It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector
information
I sincerely hope it doesn't say that!
I'm afraid it does.
For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I
have checked and no, the OS
- Original Message -
From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open
Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April
At 02:47 PM 7/01/2011, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
In the case of the UK OS, there is a switch from a potential requirement for
level 4 attribution to a clear requirement for level 1, so the Open
Government Licence is definitely good news
On 8 January 2011 02:04, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Assuming the latter we'll need to lobby.
Or alter the CTs, that way we will be able to use data from a lot of
other sources as well... As I said before a lot of AU govt data is
only being shared reluctantly and without being able to
On 8 January 2011 03:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Erm doesn't that invalidate the flexibility or relicense in future
people keep going on about?
I think Mike already answered that one at
- Original Message -
From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open
Government
Richard wrote:
Mike Collinson wrote
It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector
information
I sincerely hope it doesn't say that!
I'm afraid it does. So, the question is does the modification of the terms
invalidate the part of the OGL guaranteeing ODC-by compatibility?
At 02:47 PM 7/01/2011, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
In the case of the UK OS, there is a switch from a potential requirement for
level 4 attribution to a clear requirement for level 1, so the Open
Government Licence is definitely good news
At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
governmental organisations] and I have updated
IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating
Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to do
with the end user license:
4. At Your or the copyright owners holders option, OSMF agrees to attribute
You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a
web page
Thanks Tom, this is excellent news and what the License Working Group was
hoping would happen.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htmhttp://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm
On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
governmental organisations] and I have updated
IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating
what will happen if the license changes in
On 6 January 2011 14:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Thanks Tom, this is excellent news and what the License Working Group was
hoping would happen.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm
Which clause 3 contradicts
On 1/7/11, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
governmental organisations] and I have
26 matches
Mail list logo
