> From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:25 PM
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
>
> Fair point. Still - I would ask what is the purpose of this protection
Thanks for kicking over to legal list. Responses inline.
On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22.10.2012 22:12, Alex Barth wrote:
>> I do hope to come to an agreement within OSM along the lines you just
>> hashed out, Frederik (while not quite advocating for it):
>
>
Hi,
On 22.10.2012 22:12, Alex Barth wrote:
I do hope to come to an agreement within OSM along the lines you just
hashed out, Frederik (while not quite advocating for it):
This really ought to be discussed on legal-talk where there are many
people with a year-long involvement into the finer de
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a
>> certain map scale.
>>
>
> Same process - either you share the generalized data or you share the
> algorithm that produces it. If, for example, you were to import wi
2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley :
> Anyway, the ODbL is explicit that an image is an example of a produced work,
> so for anyone creating them, their responsibility is clear: include the
> notice required for produced works.
>
> It's also explicit that a produced work is not a derivative database (4.5b)
> From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 11:53 AM
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
>
> Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must
> be. It is clear that
Hi,
On 22.10.2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote:
What does "pre-processed or augmented" data really mean? OSM data has to
be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples
of preprocessing:
1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik
does it).
On 22/10/12 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley :
You have an obligation to make your derivative database available, if you
made one.
or describe the details and release the code, how you did it, in this
case you don't have to release the data.
Oops, yes, I over-sim
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
>
> Unless, and I'm assuming you don't intend this, it was accurate enough to
> be used as data - for example, if you labelled the lat/long of the bounding
> box accurately and included high enough resolution vector data. If that was
> the c
Hi,
Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks like
wrong) impression the produced work must also be available under the ODbL
license.
One issue still bugs me though:
If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but
> on some sort of pre-processed
On 22/10/12 11:07, Igor Brejc wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Richard Fairhurst
mailto:rich...@systemed.net>> wrote:
Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence.
Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this
implies a do
Hi,
On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote:
2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished,
closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM
attribution text.
1. Is this possible?
Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database).
> 2. What are my obligation
On 22 October 2012 10:44, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence.
> Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this
> implies a downstream attribution requirement too ("reasonably calculated to
> make any Person... ex
2012/10/22 Igor Brejc :
> Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF?
there are 2 ways to put graphics into a PDF: those with vectors
embedded and those with a raster inside. The first is to treat like a
SVG and the second like a PNG (always asuming you didn't password
protect t
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence.
> Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this
> implies a downstream attribution requirement too ("reasonably calculated to
> make any Pers
Igor Brejc wrote:
> 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a
> Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if
> you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice
> associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any
> Person that
Hi,
My understanding (emphases are mine):
“*Contents*” – The contents of this Database, which includes the
> information, independent works, or other material collected into the
> Database. For example, the contents of the Database could be factual data
> or works such as *images*, audiovisual ma
I have a question concerning the ability of someone creating produced
works from an ODbL-licensed database to license that produced work for
use by others. Strictly speaking it's a question about the ODbL,
rather that OSM, but since it will have a significant effect on OSM
users, I thought I would
18 matches
Mail list logo
