Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. No, JohnSmith, still you present a skewed vision. Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and compromise. Every contributor will make their own choice to proceed or not. But still you accuse other OSM contributors of dirty tricks. You claim your volume of edits or gas consumption as if it were something unusual to OpenStreetMap contributors. But then you import data without following the community import guidelines[1] And then you run 'bots without following the community automated edits guidelines[2] Not cool, JohnSmith. And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major changes behind the minor edit flag[2]. And the seemingly never-ending inane rebuttals of everyone else on the mailing lists leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3]. Cheers, Andy [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Firefishy#User:JohnSmith [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnSmitholdid=512994 [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/052736.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Sock puppetry is not welcome here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29 A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. The rash of posts by Jane Smith and 80 m are examples sockpuppetry at its worst. If you care for this kind of thing, take it elsewhere. It's not big, it's not clever, it's not funny, and most of all, it's not something we accept here. For the avoidance of doubt, there's a difference between sockpuppetry and pseudonyms. And if you disagree with the use of pseudonyms within our community, then take the matter up directly, rather than with such stupid mailing list posts as we've seen over the last few days. Let me remind you that legal-talk, like our other mailing lists, is here for constructive, positive discussion (and positive, constructive disagreement too), not for sending anonymous abusive emails to and/or regarding other people in the community. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 September 2010 19:22, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major Shhh don't mention the thread on the tagging list about this, it might distract people changes behind the minor edit flag[2]. And the seemingly Which minor edit(s) were mine exactly? never-ending inane rebuttals of everyone else on the mailing lists leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3]. Is that worst dirt you guys could dig up on me? No affairs with hookers, no affiliations with seedy underworld figures, no bribes to cops even, I'll have to remember to try harder in future... Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging yourself on to annoy everyone even more. It's really unbecoming. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Fun, isn't it? No, the fun is when you tick that box, then potlatch reads that from the API and disables the mapnik, opencyclemap and OS Opendata backgrounds :-) Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are willing to contribute their data under that license. Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising. Nobody was ever given the option to contribute under a different license. Using this to bolster your position is a bit disingenuous, especially since the last 30,000 people have also agreed to ODbL without any mass hysteria. That is a clear mandate for CC-BY-SA. Where's the mandate for ODbL? After more than two years of license-twiddling they still don't have a clue how much support there is. They do, both amongst Foundation members and by a (small) survey of contributors. Now we'll find out what the full contributor body has to say, but you're pretty outspoken in trying to ensure this stage has a time limit - effectively ensuring that some people will be excluded. I expect you'd be quite happy to see as many people as possible failing to meet whatever deadline you wish to see imposed on the relicensing, since that works in your favour too. After reading your arguments on the wiki and all these messages it's pretty clear you want to keep the CC-BY-SA license, ignore the fundamental problems with it, and have little interest in any other option. And if we gave you a veto, you'd use it, regardless of how many people want ODbL. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: The new contributor rights also waters down my effective veto rights to control future licenses. That's one of its great strengths - 150,000 people each with a veto is not a community, it's a recipe for nothing to change. Could you imagine if we all had vetos over every other part of the project? The new logo? Or if everyone got a veto on every post to the mailing list? None of my emails would ever get through ;-) I feel OSMF have overstepping their stewardship bounds to become the gatekeepers. I disagree - the proposed contributor terms has the OSMF being the stewards when suggesting future license changes (and presumably doing stewardship type things with getting legal advice etc) but the gatekeepers are now a large majority of the active contributors, without any effective vetos from un-contactable people. It solidifies the community as being more important than particular individuals, which I'm happy to see. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising. Everyone had two options: 1) agree to CC-BY-SA or 2) take your data to some other project (plenty to choose from). Nobody forced you to contribute to OSM. You agreed to CC-BY-SA. Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW London. So it's a crazy line of argument that you are following. But there's more to OSM than the license, and if the project wants to change the license, and I think the new license is reasonable, then I'm happy to change. I've contributed to wikipedia under different licenses over the years too, you know. This line of discussion has turned from daft to pointless. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 July 2010 19:57, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW London. So it's a crazy line of argument that you are following. It isn't crazy or ridiculous, he actually has a point, if I didn't agree with cc-by-sa I could have spent my time contributing to google under their license, but I don't like their license I prefer cc-by-sa... No, he was making the point that CC-BY-SA has 100% support amongst all the contributors, since we all agreed to it, and is using that to suggest that nobody wants to relicense and that anyone who does needs to fork the project. That's the ridiculous part. It's got nothing to do with Google and it's not helpful to drag them into the discussion. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed to drag on for another 5 years if necessary. All the time that there is uncertaintly about the license it is harming the project. Deterring potential contributors and confusing prospective users. How much longer should this be allowed to continue? Hi Etienne, Mulling over your post from yesterday, I was wondering if you could suggest a timescale that would make you feel more comfortable about the process? What changes could be made to reduce the uncertainty? There is also the existing timetable at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:25 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/7/13 Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com: If Richard's statement relayed through Frederik of that at least 90% of data is an absolute minimum becomes binding, (which would still leave a huge amount of room for wiggeling, after all 10% of data would be still 1 1/2 entire Germanys, or nearly all of Europe), much of that fear would likely go away. That's a good point: will TIGER, AND and other imports count as contributions / share of the data? If they do 90% is not much. If we talk about honest manual mapping contributions it is quite satisfactory on the other hand. I'm not sure whether such a decision has been made already, but obviously the conversation will be easier to have *after* people have decided on relicensing. Perhaps it illustrates why the LWG don't want to say something arbitrary like 95% of the data since it does make a difference which different parts of the data are affected. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see a definition (or an attempt of one, or an order of magnitude suggestion) of critical mass in that document (or any of the others). So how is this detailed with respect to this point? If anyone can point me to something concrete of what is or is not acceptable for a changeover criterion, I'd be more than happy. I don't think there's any definition of critical mass, and from what the LWG were saying at the panel discussion at SOTM I think that's deliberate and clearly something they've discussed themselves quite thoroughly. However, I'd be interested in hearing what you think. Could you put some numbers on what would make you feel comfortable? I've tried such an exercise myself (and came to the same conclusions as the LWG in the end) but that doesn't stop you from having an answer, and it might help with constructive discussion here. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, 80n 80n...@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 ways to achieve relicensing without the massive upheaval of starting a new project - instead they brought everyone along with them and built on their success. Forking is what happens to projects when they fail, and I don't believe anyone here wants OpenStreetMap to fail. But the proponents of the ODbL don't have the courage to do that. Instead they are trying to do it by attrition. First they give newbies no choice. Eventually, they hope, the number of newbies and new content will be overwhelming. Interesting accusation. Are you accusing all ODbL proponents of having this plan? Or just the LWG? Or do you care to name anyone in particular? Because otherwise your accusations aren't very constructive. If they had any guts they'd have forked the project. And they don't have the guts to put it to a straight vote either. With no deadline there's never a point at which anyone can say they failed. How much time is needed? Everything is in place, the LWG has had several years to prepare. If there isn't a clear majority by September 1st then I'd say the relicensing has failed. Thanks, that is what I was asking. By clear majority do you mean a clear majority of respondents, or a clear majority of active contributors, or a clear majority of all contributors? And would you confirm what %age equates to a clear majority? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Gervase Markham wrote: After all, if X is 99.99%, then there will probably be very little argument - which would be great. Gerv We would all agree that if 99.9% of active contributors agreed to the changeover then the changeover had a mandate. Now Gerv, what is your lower limit? for number of contributors overall? number of active contributors quantity of data? I do not accept that a decision can be made without the numbers being set *first*. Hi Liz, It's quite complicated. Let's say I said that I was happy with 89% of active contributors. Would I also accept 88.9%? 88.8%? What if the 10% who didn't agree accounted for 50% of the data? Or only 0.2% of the data? What if only 49% of contributors agree, but they account for 97% of the data? How about 48% and 94%? What if 95% of contributors agree, but the 5% who don't had originally added version 1 of 45% of the roads? Or 92%, 8% and 72%? What if the 5% of people who don't agree are evenly spread around the world? What if the 5% of people who don't agree are all in the same country? What if 99% of active contributors agree but only 5% of inactive contributors? What if 95% of the data is OK but only 25% of the contributors agree? Or 94% and 32%? What if it's 98% of the road network and 2% of the turn restrictions? Or 75% of the road network but 100% of the POIs? In all these scenarios there are more than one variable involved. If you want to make an n-dimensional spreadsheet of percentages and colour some of them green and some not, then go ahead, but it's a mammoth task. And given such a spreadsheet everyone would choose slightly different values, so we'll have a lot of spreadsheets too. After lots of discussions and What if... scenarios we've all come to the realisation that it's much better to find out what actually happens, and make decisions based on the results. If you keep things to whole percentage numbers there are at least 100,000,000 possible outcomes depending on how we want to slice things, but there's only going to be one scenario that actually happens. Lets work on the process we have, and take it from there. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed to drag on for another 5 years if necessary. That's not quite true, and I think you know that. The OSMF isn't exactly likely to have this phase of the relicensing simply dragging on - to start suggesting that it would isn't helpful and is another fear of the fear of ODbL thing. All the time that there is uncertaintly about the license it is harming the project. Deterring potential contributors and confusing prospective users. How much longer should this be allowed to continue? I think allowed to continue is the wrong phrase. Perhaps what can I do to help speed things up? would be better. Maybe working on (more) documentation and outreach, or finding out what the holdup is with allowing existing contributors to choose to relicense and offering to help with that. I know I'm itching to be allowed to indicate my preference, and I know that there's already something like 30,000 newbies who have agreed already. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: This meta fear is mostly due to the fact that the OSMF and LWG are refusing to give even the most vague indication of what this procedure is going to look like and what is acceptable or not. Oh really? They are refusing to give any vague indication? That's news to me. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan Seems pretty detailed to me. Honestly, if we want to have a constructive debate, let's save the FUD and instead approach the issue sensibly. The LWG and the OSMF are some of the most respected people in the entire project, who have been working for literally *years* now on getting the best possible result for the project. Spreading rumours and attacking them isn't helping. If you need some more information, or you think something isn't clear, or if you find something that you want more information on, or if you want to offer to help, then let's keep it constructive and positive. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: this process appears to be defined no further than lets see what happens and then once we have the results, this criterion will present it self. It won't! It will still be an n-dimensional decision and be no easier to define, No it won't. When we know the results it will be a binary decision - yes, or no. We will have all the information to hand. We will know which countries will be affected, which contributors (if any) have refused and for what reason, and so on. There won't be any if we have X% of Y things, because we'll have the results. It's the only way to make the problem tractable. other than that you can change the criteria to make sure the result you want emerges at the end rather than based on rational arguments as you can now. That's quite an offensive accusation, and I hope it was aimed at me rather than the LWG. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, until now, most of us (I believe) have viewed the ODbL's Produced Works concept as relating to something like a PNG image made from the OSM database. A map tile, if you will. I wonder what other forms of Produced Works there are. What, for example, about lists? If I produce from OSM a list of all bakeries in London, with addresses, and put that up on a web page - is that more something like a PNG image (a Produced Work), or is it already a database excerpt (a little Javascript magic might allow you to sort the table or to filter out certain elements - certainly characteristics of a data base)? Pass. I'll leave that to someone else to comment. If the latter - would things be any different if I offered the list (a) not on a web page, but as a PDF document which has less database-like capabilities, or (b) in printed form? The distribution mechanism has got nothing to do with it being a database, as far as I know. The law works on a much more abstract basis than that. The definition of a database from the EU directive 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. So I could arrange pebbles on a beach to represent the binary encoding of planet.osm.bz2 (how many pebbles are needed is an exercise for the reader) and that would still count as a database. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal, It's not less than ideal. It's dreadful. The OSMF license team have created a document explaining why. We've had lawyers confirming that it probably doesn't work. Even the people who created it say that it should not be used for data. That is, Creative Commons have advised us, and everyone else, to not use CCBYSA for data. It doesn't come more plain than that. But that hasn't stopped you from having your own opinion, which is that you aren't swayed by all the evidence to the contrary, and whenever you ask for such evidence and it's provided, you seem to shrug it off anyway. I'm not sure if there's any avenue left that we can help you with? If it's your settled decision that CCBYSA is actually OK, even after all this, then I can't think of anything that will help inform your decision more than what's been said already. After all if we go through one big data deletion and relicensing, what's to stop it happening again later? Have you read the proposed contributor terms? I'm not sure whether your question is just rhetorical speculation, or whether you have suggested changes to the proposed contributor terms that might help solve whichever problem it is you think that there might be in the future. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I'm not saying that Creative Commons are always right, but trying to make it sound as if they were endorsing OdBL is a bit heavy. I'm not sure where I mentioned the OdBL? I'm just trying to make the point to Ed that his desire to continue CC-BY-SA licensing is simply not a workable solution. This whole conversation would be much more productive if everyone could accept that the status quo isn't a valid answer, regardless of how much life would be simpler if it was. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I'd be a lot more persuaded if there were evidence of a real, occurring problem rather than a theoretical one. [snip] Or in other words, you still believe the the CC-BY-SA license is fine, all the re-licensing stuff isn't worth it, and you don't see why anything needs changing. The only thing that you say might change your mind is if you are shown more information about lawyer-company scenarios which are simply hypothetical and unknowable, which of course I can't help you with. Fine. Like I said in my last email, I don't think there's anything left I can say. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM data grant
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: Russ Nelson wrote: SteveC wrote: Andy Allan wrote: [...] Wow, I knew CloudMade had developed some really cool OSM-related products, but I had no idea a Fast Acting Synchronised Legal-Talk Trolling Squadron was one of them. Keep up at the back! We've also got the Unnecessary-Ranting-On-IRC and Talking-Drivel-in-the-Pub Squadrons too. Oh. It appears I might be the common link. Ahem. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM data grant
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Russ Nelsonr...@cloudmade.com wrote: Yeah, I gotta admit that I'm wishing that we could protect the database as a database of geodata, whilst simultaneously allowing people to make derivative works that AREN'T a database of geodata, whilst also avoiding the TIGER trap of proprietary database improvements. Not sure that copyright allows for such fine control. If only we had a license that combined contract fusion, database fission and anti-copyright-matter together into something that does just that! All hail the ODbL! Cheers, Andy Perhaps we should be looking at our own behavior rather than the legal system? -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv- gm...@gerv.net wrote: b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort unless they create SVG files that just happen to contain the same data as OSM files and we add a loophole that says SVG files are a derived work instead of a database, thus allowing wtfyw license to be applied. My evil alter ego would be quite interested in developing a version of the cycle map that whilst looking a bit strange just so happened to be quite easy to run OMR over. Perhaps Dave's evil alter ego would find writing such an Optical Map Recogniser interesting... I think without the reverse engineering clause, you may as well make it PD in the first place.. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
I don't think we want to provide a bypass for the reverse engineering clause, so much as ensure that it can be an SA produced work plus no reverse engineering combined. Cheers, Andy Who should be out on his bike mapping Dolgellau instead of reading legal-talk on holiday... On 6 Mar 2009, at 16:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: there are three things that spring to mind I meant four (no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition, etc.). 4. OSMF can request additional permissions over and above ODbL from its users, as part of the new user sign-up, or the licence change agreement. (Effectively dual-licensing.) The ability to relicence as CC-BY-SA could be specified as an additional permission if we so decided. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Are-Produced-Works-anti-share-alike--tp22375518p22376308.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Okay to trace from public-domain USGS DOQs?
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: A co-worker of yours, CloudMade's very own Andy Allan, had this to say about the topic: Just as well that none of us are lawyers then, eh? :-) Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Technical - Tile serving, API restrictions Servers I am still not clear that there is a need for API restrictions and what reduction in bandwidth costs would result. What are the predicted costs of continuing the current arrangement? Has UCL provided the Foundation with information that indicates that it is a problem. What would be the cost of providing it commercially. Could we could raise it? I have seen no costings. Have the board been presented with such financial forecasts? [...] Fyi, we are speaking with a professor we know at CASA, UCL to ask if there was a problem with bandwidth as far as he knows. He is checking this and will get back to us and we will report to the group. I think UCL should be very keen to hang onto this project. Jeez Peter, that's really dangerous ground you're stomping around on. If you're sufficiently unaware of the current arrangements between UCL and OSM that you don't know how much it costs, and unwilling to do sufficient research on your own to find out the equivalent commercial prices, then approaching third parties you happen to know at UCL is completely out of order. Can you not even see that you asking a third party to go digging and then you'll report back to the group with information that OSMF knows already just is not helpful? Until recently I worked in another uni in London in the ICT division. Safe to say that many arrangements founded on goodwill and understanding are destroyed as soon as someone demands official arrangements to be made public. I can only hope that OSM's relationship with UCL is undamaged by your current quest. And I say that from having an appreciation of the monetary values I refer to in my first paragraph. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
