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
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
- 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 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
