t back
> to you.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
>
> United States
>
> Cheers
> blake
>
>
>
much Simon and Kathleen!
Cheers
Blake
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no need for me to
> climb out on a limb :-). I'll ask for an opinion internally and get back
> to you.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 2
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Saturday 21 January 2017, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote:
>> > However care should be taken that the mapper is in a solid
>> > situation when using the data independent of the question if
>> > his/her w
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
>
United States
Cheers
blake
> Simon
>
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
> seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
> licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
> issues that require going
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> However care should be taken that the mapper is in a solid situation
> when using the data independent of the question if his/her work
> actually makes it into the main OSM database. In the past this has
> often been a problem with spec
Greetings,
We are working with an imagery provider who is going to release some
of their imagery under cc-by-nc 4.0, and with a specific allowance for
it to be used for digitizing into OSM.
Their main goal as I understand it, is to make sure their imagery is
cc-by-nc 4.0, but they are fine if it
