Further to the recent debate in which I asked and was asked about US
copyright...
Here (thanks to @mecredis on Twitter) is a reference to the split
decision on derivative copyright -
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2004/01/zephoria_kulesh.html
Here is a page about database copyright with
I have asked on the odc-discuss mailing list about how the share-alike
of the ODbL interacts with the share-alike of BY-SA:
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-July/000275.html
Short answer: There is no problem.
Long Answer: ODbL 1.0 clause 4.6 doesn't cover other people using
On 07/25/2010 05:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
So why hasn't OSMF moved OSM to CC-BY-SA 3.0? The upgrade clause
makes that nearly as simple as sed 's/2.0/3.0/g' index.html,
right?
Nearly.
But at least one major contribution to OSM is from a jurisdiction where
the 2.0 licences included the EU DB
On 07/24/2010 05:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org
mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote:
How?
By acknowledging their existence and using
On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would
violate CC-BY-SA.
Copyleft licences (or a copyleft licence and a hybrid copyright/DB
Right/contract law conceptual approximation of sharealike) are
*generally* mutually incompatible
On 07/26/2010 04:29 PM, Anthony wrote:
Only if you license the produced work under BY-SA. Which means *all
elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA. Which means *the data*
encapsulated in the produced work is under BY-SA.
No, it means the produced work is BY-SA.
Which means anybody
On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced
work without following the terms of ODbL.
Nowhere. However the terms that cover Produced Works are different to
those that cover Derivative Databases, and the attribution/advertising
On 07/26/2010 05:30 PM, Anthony wrote:
You said yourself that the database right doesn't have to be asserted.
Yes, I should have said do waive, not don't assert.
No one can assert the database right on a derivative of the OSM
database, because they'd need the permission of the maker of the
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright
statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the
finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org
and
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
How?
By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves.
Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial.
Relicencing derivative works is trivial.
Getting the approval of every OSM user to approve a change
On 07/23/2010 02:02 PM, Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure anyone credible has claimed that [ODbL] is a free license. The
purpose of a free license is to grant permissions, not to impose
restrictions.
The purpose of a free licence is to protect people's freedom.
PD dedications and BSD licences
On 07/23/2010 04:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
Though, I'd say license is somewhat of a disingenuous term for
something which is actually an EULA.
Well, CC get to call CC0 not a licence. ;-)
I agree that the ODbL isn't just a licence, but I don't think it's any
more accurate to call it a EULA.
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the
fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for
massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which
would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:33:44 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in
order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on
the
bus
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:58:25 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote:
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting,
Of the people?
The US and the
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:33:48 +0100, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on
creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
I know
On 07/17/2010 04:04 AM, Diane Peters wrote:
The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that
copyright doesn't apply to databases, is not correct.
I am sorry for misrepresenting SC's views on this.
One other point worth mentioning, this one in response to another
suggestion
On 07/16/2010 09:58 PM, Liz wrote:
After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable
to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was
the subject of the case.
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright
licences
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia?
The court case in question was over facts, dates and times
On 07/17/2010 04:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various
levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined
ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On 07/16/2010 12:26 AM, TimSC wrote:
Not to mention the notes that accompanied the vote
were unashamedly pro-ODbL, despite Creative Commons criticizing the
ODbL.
Science Commons's views on the ODbL are not shared by OKFN, who seem to
have a better understanding of data law.
(different
On 07/16/2010 09:49 AM, Anthony wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being
that it has actually been written to cover data.
That's not at all correct. The main change between BY-SA and ODbL is
the requirement to release the database whenever you use the
On 07/16/2010 10:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 16 July 2010 18:35, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
48% for, 6% against, no clear majority...
The largest single voting category is clearly the for vote.
And within the cast votes the result is even clearer.
I guess you misunderstand what
On 07/16/2010 10:28 AM, Liz wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying
to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of
Australians.
a complete untruth
Then I sincerely apologize. :-(
- Rob
On 07/16/2010 01:01 PM, James Livingston wrote:
On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has
actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they are
afraid not enough people will relicence
On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole,
even if
it doesn't apply to some
On 07/16/2010 05:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases,
In the US.
OKFN
seem to think it might.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
On 07/14/2010 12:32 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, 80n80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
I whole-heartedly disagree. Do you think that wikipedia should have
forked for their relicensing? Or Mozilla? They managed to find
On 07/15/2010 10:38 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 15 July 2010 18:55, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
OSM has a clear mandate for the change. A majority (more than half) of the
electorate voted, and a clear majority of the votes were for the change.
Less than 49% of those eligible to vote,
On 07/15/2010 10:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 16 July 2010 00:48, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
More than half. And within that more than half, the vote was overwhelming.
Which is amusing, because it wouldn't have passed if few people that
disagreed hadn't voted.
Counterfactuals don't
On 07/15/2010 11:27 AM, Liz wrote:
Offering a vote to those who paid a fee in pounds or euros to belong to a
particular organisation (OSMF) and ignoring the far larger group who were not
offered a vote but actually are the legal copyright holders does not make a
valid poll.
It was a valid
On 06/24/2010 09:34 AM, Andy Allan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Oliver (skobbler)
Really, if people (businesses, charities, individuals or whoever) have
data they wish to keep private, they can still use OSM data
internally. If they want to Publicly Convey this Database, any
On 06/24/2010 10:07 AM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
For me it looks like business users can feel safe with their data if they do
not
make derivative databases, for example by enhancing their own data by taking
tags from OSM database.
If enhancing means incorporating the data into a single
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:47:47 +0200, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com
wrote:
If ODBL existed in the same variants as CC does, this would be easier.
I support CC very strongly, but I don't recommend licence variants. They
make things even more confusing and incompatible.
OSM can be viewed as
On 19/04/10 20:19, TimSC wrote:
This issue also applies to OS opendata, as it requires attribution.
OS data is CC-BY compatible. They state this explicitly.
BY is BY-SA compatible.
OSM is currently BY-SA. Allegedly. ;-)
Is
work afoot to get OS to agree to compatibility with ODbL?
On 05/03/10 20:16, Liz wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, elf Pavlik wrote:
Hello Everyone!
I just asked on GeoNames mailing list why they don't use OSM for their
map functionality.
http://groups.google.com/group/geonames/t/ec02877f850cf6c7
A person named Marc responded that OSM share-alike
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:06:42 +, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not
active any more
On 05/01/10 19:24, 80n wrote:
It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about
contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is about.
Yes, any copyleft/share-alike licence *enables* this. But I think the
discussion here (and I've been guilty of this myself in
On 01/01/10 17:40, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly*
relevant.
What OSMF requires in the current draft is for you to effectively give up
your copyright
On 12/12/09 11:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
but even with ODbL in place and considering the best interests of the
project as a whole, for me it would be perfectly sufficient to be able
to say publicly that X is using OSM illegally.
Rather than naming and shaming, the FSF and the SFLC always
On 12/12/09 12:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Agreed, although this of course requires determined and capable people
to do the work. If there are such people in OSM who do that voluntarily
then that's good. If there are no such people then I would object to
spending money to hire them from
On 11/12/09 10:26, James Livingston wrote:
* You wouldn't be able to use data you personally collected, except under the
ODbL (the last part of the second sentence on the second paragraph above).
I believe that the FSF copyright assignment scheme licences your work
back to you once you sign
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Yes. The fork must be under the ODbL.
(I am not a lawyer, etc.)
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
2009/3/26 Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:31:51PM +, John McKerrell wrote:
edible map? nom nom nom
Cake! \o/
http://paradoxoff.com/files/2007/08/map-of-paris-cake.jpg
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
SteveC wrote:
No I think there are some substantial issues, but they're inflated
because of the PoV.
I didn't have a chance to get to Science Commons while I was in Boston
last week but I did talk to various people who are Smarter Than Me (tm)
from the FSF and CC and none of them supported
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote:
Rob Myers schrieb:
A license which:
- preserves the freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute
and
- requires you to license derivative works under the same license.
That covers CC-BY-NC-SA. ;-)
Is that a problem
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 08/03/09 21:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that
time? Since our license can be upgraded to a later version, so can the
list of compatible SA licenses for
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
1. Creative Commons licences define Work (which you're quoting in the case
of 4a) as the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of
this License (1e). I.e., as we know by now, CC-BY-SA is defined and
FYI :
The EU's Database Directive does not have an exemption for people
with disabilities in the way that the Copyright Directive and
copyright laws have. The Commission asked whether a new exemption in
that Directive should be created. The Government said it should.
Subject to evaluation of the
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to
give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you
waive all right to
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org wrote:
I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with
fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed.
The licence discussion has been going on for a couple of *years* now.
It needs
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
OJ W wrote:
the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data
does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license?
You can create an image and
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
jean-christophe.haessig wrote:
Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments
on wiki pages, I am under the impression
John Wilbanks wrote:
(although I find the idea that freedom can only come from the
barrel of a license deeply depressing).
That's CC Zero out of the running then.
If Big Company decides to run a mechanical turk contest on Amazon to
extract facts from your DB one at a time, do they violate
John Wilbanks wrote:
This is why if you peruse the CC0 site, you'll see it referred to as a
legal tool and not a license. It's a small thing, but an important thing
to remember. Conflating the waiving of rights with the licensing of
rights is what we're trying to avoid in this context.
Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer =
to a
situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to
something where only part of it is.=20
A collective work includes the untransformed work.
A derivative work adapts it in some way.
One can claim
Add this question/point to the wiki!
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible share-alike
licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works
derived from more than one already existing free work.
While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or
BSD-like
Johann H. Addicks wrote:
I consider evolving licenses as evil blank cheques.
They are a necessary evil. And a necessary blankness.
Even if there is preamble saying all future versions will be in the same
faith like this a lot of contributors will feel that they are forced to
trust
Frederik Ramm wrote:
* WHAT changes can be made to the license once it is accepted;
* WHO can make these changes (whom do we trust to make them); and
* HOW will such changes become vetted by the community, if at all.
These are the decisions that can absolutely not be postponed until after
MJ Ray wrote:
As I understand it, once the trademark registration is confirmed (no
matter who to), unauthorised commercial use of the mark becomes a
criminal act punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years prison.
Has a written license been granted, or are you expecting people not to
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is the
well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible with sources
(and consumers) using the same license. So, say I've uploaded a lot
of information based on wikipedia, conscious that I'm uploading
Simon Ward wrote:
I can’t help but think it would be more with the spirit of the project
to have open development of the licence, and that it would have been
beneficial if this had been an open development much earlier.
I've submitted comments on previous drafts of the licence via the blog
it
Please don't post personal emails when discussing trustworthiness. :-(
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Peter Miller wrote:
I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to
one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than
one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at
present).
Frederik's email of 16.40 covers what I would like
Rob Myers wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to
one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than
one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at
present).
Frederik's email of 16.40
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
What information can we use from these sources under 'fair use' rules?
Under English Welsh or European law, none. There's no Fair Use exception here.
Under American law, whatever you can get away with in court.
I
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
There does however appear to be something in the UK about 'fair
dealing'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_the_United_Kingdom
It seems a possible justification, but it may be a bit weak.
Nathan Vander Wilt wrote:
For example,
if a photographer geotags a picture using OSM, what are the chances of
a local surveyor (or any other contributor) wanting to decide how that
copy of the photograph must then be licensed?
Zero.
(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
-
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the very cautious approach OSM has had to copyright infringement up to
now, this does seem like a rather reckless and uncharacteristic position for
us to take, but I don't think I've heard any other proposals for how to deal
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Microsoft / Mapquest / Google / whoever ever decide to join the
community, would our new open data license let them use any of our
data?
Nothing in the new licence prevents corporations from using OSM data.
What /
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM, brendan barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Would I be allowed to leave out the user and timestamp tags in
the version that I create? Could I leave out any unnecessary tags
(there are a few)?
Yes, you can. The
Frederik Ramm wrote:
In my eyes this modular nonsense is actually the greatest problem with
the CC licenses and I'm happy not to see it repeated here.
A little harsh but I do agree that licence proliferation is a bad
thing. ODbL should not support it.
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly recommend that any first contacts
be much more friendly, point out potential issues and offer reasonings
and a way to enter into discussion to do things correctly.
Yes I think this is important.
The Creative
IANAL, TINLA.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd rather it need not be legally binding, just automatic. The problem
is that the laws to restrict exist at all, not the philosophy behind
keeping things free.
The laws that do or do not restrict data are
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy answered that in the message you are replying to, but you edited
his answer out.
D'oh. Sorry about that. :-(
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you instead give the customer a heavily DRMed and encrypted version
of your data, together with some decryption/processing software and with
an OSM data file, and make it so that the PDF is generated on the
customer's
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the main problems with sharealike/copyleft is the large number of
incompatible licenses. I suggest explicitly adding some important such
licenses to 4.4 iii, so we don't lock too many other free communities
IANAL, TINLA.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My example above did *not* contain distribution of any OSM-derived work.
The items that were distributed were (a) proprietary software, (b)
proprietary data, and (c) unaltered OSM data.
(c) is distribution
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it an intended side effect of the license to discourage
internet-based distribution of derivative dbs?
I wouldn't have thought so. :-)
My suggestion would be
that recovering reasonable production cost should also be
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
most is not enough. There are reasons to link data into a program.
I am a Lisp programmer. Code is data. ;-)
And use of the GPL is not restricted to software. Maybe I want to make a
map where some location is marked by a GPLed image. Maybe I want to put
some
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You say 'everyone else is worse off' if they use a PD map. It seems
like the bus company wins - they have more passengers.
Privatising wealth is always a win for those who privatise it but this
isn't really a reason for
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I _do_ like the fact that people in OSM are starting to figure out why
Potlatch is called Potlatch.
I had assumed it was a kind of stew. ;-)
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Richard Fairhurst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Liz wrote:
I don't want PD for my data because then I can see the company like
Garmin
freely using it to update their maps and still charging me for my
data.
But this is what I never get when people wheel out the
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be annoying to contribute first to PD and then separately to
OpenStreetMap-share alike, but I am not astonished if that will be the only
way
to support both PD and OSM. It is a pity that I do not have local
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, none of us are ever going to agree on any of this. :)
We agree on that. :-)
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
Nothing is ever as simple as you hope. :]
Joseph wrote: I don't think its that big a deal - we could just say
if you edit a
node, your edits are also under the same PD license as the node is
currently under or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Rob Myers wrote:
In the US, the FSF are very careful to say that the GPL is a license,
not a contract.
The proposed ODbL, on the other hand, is very careful to point out that
it wants to be a license as well as a contract
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
clicktrough
is the embodiment of impracticality.
Yes.
Using the data should require no agreement. Distributing modifications
(and by distributing I mean exposing in any way to users not employed
or subcontracted by your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jochen Topf wrote:
A contract by definition is something you can only enter into
voluntarily.
This is why the FSF insist that the GPL is a licence, not a contract.
In some jurisdictions (IANAL, TINLA) licences may be contracts, but we
don't talk
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Sunburned Surveyor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose there is the Public Domain Dedication from the Creative
Commons that we could use as well, although that will have to be
discussed among the participants. Or the Open Data Commons Public
Domain Dedication
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876
messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before.
Me too. ;-)
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if it is even possible to write down a sharp distinction
between the two cases, but for me there is a world of difference between
(a) giving a data base to someone whom I pay to do something with it for
me -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
After , the trail data will be merged into a global public
database called OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap is a non-commercial
project
No, it's not - or, at least, to claim this is to suggest
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I believe that it is entirely appropriate and practical for all
60,000 contributors (or 600,000!) to be listed on the OpenStreetMap website;
that seems entirely 'appropriate for the medium or means' and I suggest
Depending on how it relates to the OSM data, you might be able to BY
your data, and then this could be combined with OSM's data to produce
a BY-SA derivative.
See here for compatibility: http://creativecommons.org.tw/licwiz/english.html
- Rob.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL
201 - 300 di 305 matches
Mail list logo
