On 8 December 2010 11:14, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Once all the licence issues are resolved and we know whether projects
will be forked or our data removed, then Ill start dumping all my edits
back in. Ive also tried working on parts of New Zealand, but have come
up against a
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 message don't you understand?
Robert Kaiser
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
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
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
Anthony schrieb:
1) You can't take things out of the public domain.
Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind)
make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any
different terms you like, right?
I think it's clear that what is currently in the OSM
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
1) You can't take things out of the public domain.
Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind)
make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different
terms
Anthony schrieb:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in
some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there
are
Anthony:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to
the applicable case law in
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located
in
some
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Anthony:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Please name the jurisdictions
: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:38:50
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
Simon,
Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07
I agree with Frederik's very nice comparison of OSM with volunteer
organizations as well.
I guess OSM should be viewed as a collection of geodata to which
Frederik, John, Liz, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Richard, Richard,
Richard, et al have contributed to, instead of as a collection of
On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not
created to control the data. In fact, this was a key founding
principle. OSMF was created to support the project,
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not
created to control the
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because
otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person?
I'm not sure what you mean by owns
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By the way: The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is
not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About
___
legal-talk
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because
otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person?
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Andreas Perstinger
On 2010-12-08 15:46, Anthony wrote:
Who owns Wikipedia?
At the copyright level, the ownership is fragmented.
And yet that didn't stop the licence being changed.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located
in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've
heard, there are quite a few). :P
Robert Kaiser
___
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in
some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there
are quite a few). :P
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Or maybe Frederik can answer it:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
Then no one should own the database right.
So we're back at the status quo which is in my opinion not the best
option (many uncertainties).
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF
On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that
the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first
place.
I think there's
On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree with you that more
On 2010-12-08 18:36, Francis Davey wrote:
There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui
generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that
their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that
view, but other views are more problematic.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one
of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm
quite wary of collectivism and the
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that
the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
to you the individual
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 00:34:59 +
Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:26AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you
for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid.
Firstly, it’s not
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The usual sort of click-through 'agreement' has two buttons, one for
positive, and one for negative. Whether a click-through agreement with
two buttons for positive and none for negative can be enforced anywhere
is not
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Failing that, maybe its time that more people started doing what Im
doing. Im quite an active mapper, as its something I enjoy doing with
my time. What Ive been doing for the past couple of months, is only
making minor
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with
the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you
can indicate your preference right now.
When we are at the mandatory phase,
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:45:14 +1100, Andrew Harvey
andrew.harv...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've decided to just ignore the CTs for now, and continue to operate
under CC BY-SA. Others are doing this to, and you could too, assuming
you haven't agreed to the CTs and you don't actually plan to sit
around
On 8 December 2010 10:58, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with
the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you
can indicate
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Partially a rhetorical question... What would the project do if
someone uploaded data to OSM and then said they had not agreed to
contributing the data under CC-BY-SA?
In case you're misinterpreting my request: I
listt...@openstreetmap.org; Serge Wroclawskiemac...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF
a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to
their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be
changed in the future without the
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF
a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to
their personal rights. I
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the
license under which everyone elses content is published.
Yes. But
-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the
license under which
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example,
* license the data under a non-free or non-open license
Free according to whom? Open according to whom?
* license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
To change the CT, all they have to do is 1)
require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have
a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new
CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license
On 8 December 2010 00:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively
On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Disappointing as ever... [citation needed]
What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up
on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false
statement being made repeatedly and you don't
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort
of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the
subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more
integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's
Simon,
Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
My statement above arose from a discussion in which pec...@gmail.com wrote:
I know that
On 8 December 2010 11:40, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and
on with vexatious claims.
What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you
point them out? List archive links prefered.
So you've
If the OSMF won't uncheck your acceptance of the CT's, then I think
they should at least hold of damaging the database by removing your
edits until after this proposed change to ODbL. Otherwise if people
insist and actually start removing this data, its time for the CC
BY-SA forks to kick in. I
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
This is really a policy issue I think.
I've replied to everything else on the legal list, but to get back to
the original issue: you seem to be in a position to change the flag on
my account, but need authorisation from someone.
On 07/12/10 11:31, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
This is really a policy issue I think.
I've replied to everything else on the legal list, but to get back to
the original issue: you seem to be in a position to change the flag on
my
Hi,
On 12/07/2010 12:43 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
Failing that, would it be possible for you to create me a new account
(stevage1), and unset the flag on that account?
I'm in the position where I have the ability to do both those things
certainly but I wouldn't want to do so.
The LWG are the
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:43:12 +
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
I'm in the position where I have the ability to do both those things
certainly but I wouldn't want to do so.
The LWG are the people to talk to about this.
I would not suggest LWG. They are a committee of the Board. Apply
On 7 December 2010 15:24, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 12/07/2010 12:43 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
The LWG are the people to talk to about this.
And if they have any confidence in their own work they will certainly not
create new accounts with the CT flag unset.
Provided they have
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 22:31 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Failing that, would it be possible for you to create me a new account
(stevage1), and unset the flag on that account?
Failing that, maybe its time that more people
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Failing that, maybe its time that more people started doing what Im
doing. Im quite an active mapper, as its something I enjoy doing with
my time. What Ive been doing for the past couple of months, is only
making minor
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:26AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you
for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid.
Firstly, it’s not clear that click through agreements are valid in the
UK. They might be in
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
I used to create government procurements, big messy ones where sales guys
would hit the prime minister's office to protest and get fired fifteen
minutes after a debriefing when they lost. When dealing with potential
problems from egos I always found it very helpful to build a list of
requirements
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
pec...@gmail.com wrote:
License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change
data license to any other free license (which could be strip share
alike and attribution requirements) what blocks
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new Contributor Terms. I have no recollection of having done so, and
obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
with Nearmap. Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set,
nor does it provide a
On 06/12/10 12:09, Steve Bennett wrote:
1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)
This is really a policy issue I think.
2) Could someone please tell me when it got set?
2010-08-13 01:44:38.6323 UTC
And for bonus points:
3) Could someone provide evidence that I did
This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new Contributor Terms. I have no recollection of having done so, and
obviously I
On 6 December 2010 23:55, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward.
From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any
nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT
are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT
I think that the pertinent question is whether Steve deliberately
accepted the CT and license or was he hijacked by a bad UI.
David.
PS. Wow, reading all of the emails on this subject over the last
year, it is clear that this license issue and the way that it has been
handled is obviously the
On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new Contributor Terms. I have no recollection of having done so, and
obviously I
- Original Message -
From: Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com
To: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Cc: Open Street Map mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
This should really be taking place on the legal
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new
2010/12/6 Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward.
Hi,
pec...@gmail.com wrote:
License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change
data license to any other free license (which could be strip share
alike and attribution requirements) what blocks usage. In fact,
there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:55 -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new Contributor
Am 06.12.2010 17:58, schrieb Serge Wroclawski:
The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project.
The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is part of the ~3 people
who runs this project :-)
Regards, ULFL
___
talk mailing
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:41:05 -0500
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
We're* also expecting to implement a way for you to flag edits that
shouldn't be promoted to CT/ODbL, so you'll be able to accept CT, and
flag those changesets that are incompatible individually. The bad
ones won't be
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:15 +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Am 06.12.2010 17:58, schrieb Serge Wroclawski:
The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project.
The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is part of the ~3 people
who runs this project :-)
If the OSMF board
On 6 December 2010 20:44, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:55 -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:45:00 +0100
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
What about at changeover though? Im pretty sure Steve asked this
question in relation to data in the future, not the present.
It's incompatible even at
On 6 December 2010 23:23, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
What about at changeover though? Im pretty sure Steve asked this
question in relation to data in the future, not the present.
It's incompatible even at present.
could you
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
that license.
This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering
81 matches
Mail list logo
