On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:59:30PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided
> to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT.
>
> In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did
> the work.
>
> So
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:12:24PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> >“commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to
> >be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just
> >allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc.
>
> Since there are licences that explicitly
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
> wrote:
> > Thanks Grant,
> >
> > I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe
> > unclear:
> >
> > What does this phrase (about the trans
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 01:00:26PM +, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote:
> > On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope wrote:
> > >> I must admit, however, that bas
[Also posted to legal-talk, I suggest follow-ups go there.]
In short…
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote:
> On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope wrote:
> >> I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:04:21PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> Relicencing is, I agree, a drastic move. But we are talking about
> making it possible or not here. And it is something that requires a
> convincing vote to achieve under the CTs.
I do not believe relicensing is impossible without it bei
Rob, thank you, your answers to my barrage of questions were most
helpful, and have showed me that I’m not completely off course in my
thinking.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> >Why leave it undefined?
>
> To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose me
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> >I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I
> >think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting,
> >you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that
> >correct?
>
> I fe
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> >>It's not "paranoia". It's a recognition that the task has been
> >>necessary once, has been very difficult even after only a few years
> >>of contributions, and may be necessary again after many more years.
> >
> >May be.
>
> And OSM i
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> >I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for
> >those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM
>
> I agree.
>
> >doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in
> >dismissing it entirely
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> >To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s
> >sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything.
>
> You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be
> limited by it?
No. I said I don’t think it i
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:33:59PM +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Ed Avis schrieb:
> >Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
>
> Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear
> definition of how "active contributors" are defined?
It is quite well defined but not well
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
> >
> >If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
> >of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
> >then actually,
don’t think
they are acting in the best interests of the community.
*I* can compromise to form something agreeable, can you/they?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:54:08AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote:
> >We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust t
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:48:47AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote:
> >If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
> >This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as
> >“free” or “open” isn’t to
[I’ve followed up Francis’ post, but also quoted from another
sub‐thread, because I think his post includes a response to that.]
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:17:50AM +, I wrote:
> If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
> This includes being precise about the possi
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +, Grant Slater wrote:
> On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com wrote:
> > About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
> > clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike
> > and attribution clauses.
>
> I don't
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor
> to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while
> the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his
> contribution is compatible wi
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:27PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
> Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never
> do such a thing, but in theory it is possible.
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to ass
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 Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload
> their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users
> should not be required to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some
> new users will be shune
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:30:20PM -0500, Richard Weait wrote:
> who criticize CT v1.0. What do you think of the current draft of the
> contributor terms? Is this an improvement? What aspects address your
> concerns regarding previous versions? What aspects could be further
> improved and how?
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:49:56PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases
> (including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section
> 4.4)
I think the upgrade clause in ODbL is sufficiently flexible for possible
licence impr
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:28:05AM -0700, Kai Krueger wrote:
> There appear to be some interesting thoughts about this in the most recent
> LWG meeting minutes ( https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk )
> in the Contributor Terms Revision section:
>
> e.g.
>
> "If you want to import
On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 09:49:18PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myers wrote:
> > In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of
> > data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something
> > intended to be used visually.
>
>
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> > That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
> > the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
> > Obviously those who created the cu
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> >The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against
> >the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a
> >licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with
> >the licence
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:30:44AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> I think this is slightly ignoring the fact that the CT are the result
> of compromises, and were developed over quite some time before being
> rolled out.
I believe some of the issues being mentioned now were being mentioned
since the
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:59:19AM -0600, SteveC wrote:
> Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed?
Yes, hence why I said this (highlighting added):
> > I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
> > terms. *There is a very small amount*, but O
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote:
> >1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus?
> >OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else?
>
> Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or
> mi
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:48:22AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> > On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
> > >Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
> > >transferred to someone
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
> >Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
> >transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […]
>
> Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard agains
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> > Someone
> > in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and
> > someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD and to what
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:40:23AM +0200, Nic Roets wrote:
> Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an
> idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing
> their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law,
> contrac
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 06:56:15PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
> On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and
> > *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in
> > order to make *clear* what yo
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:04:01AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> So I don't think setting a minimum attribution level is a good idea,
> at least from a "user freedom" point of view.
I agree. I mentioned a minimum attribution because others seem to want
that. The LWG and/or OSMF only seem to be consid
The second clause grants “OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
copyright over anything within the Contents. It has been debated that
this is even necessary already, so I’m not going to start on that…
What I would like to
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:20:18AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
> > I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can
> > you give examples for using and distributing individual contents
> > that way?
>
> Without having first extracted it from the database, I c
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I am against trying to force our will on "OSM in 10 years". OSM in
> ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by
> orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand
> in any way over and above t
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Simon Ward wrote:
> >OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves
> >quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and
> >distributed without taking into account th
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
> We can do the license change now because it is the right thing to do,
> or we can do the license change now and make future license changes
> simpler for future OpenSteetMap communities.
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:59:41PM +1000, Liz wrote:
> I find the choice of 300 people quite ironic.
> That's about the membership of OSMF, from where comes the pressure to change
> the licence and the CTs.
Let’s not forget that some of those members don’t agree with the licence
and/or CTs.
The
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:03:37AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC wrote:
> > They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike
> > long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap.
>
> I think most problems currently with the CT is because there is too
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Yup. But then again, by the time data has lapsed it is very likely
> to be utterly useless. I am 99% certain that in 10 years time you
> *will*, for most use cases, be able to get data that is more current
> than OSM and has less rest
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:17:13PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> Except that in many jurisdictions, true PD doesn't exist like in France,
> where you cannot remove the moral right of someone even if you sold your
> rights.
For what it’s worth, you can’t actually remove moral rights in the UK
eith
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:42:35PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
> The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only,
> have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you
> suggest that they should not have a choice?
Not arguing against people having a choice, but
> Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
> maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the
> mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a
> reference or an example to follow.
Why do we need contract law at all?
I know
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:43AM +1000, Liz wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
> > To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
> > it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
> > contract is also adhered to.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:10:03AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data
> available doesn't make the data public domain. Richard Fairhurst pointed out
[…]
> A quick talk with a friend who is a lawyer made abundantly clear that third
>
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the
> contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given
> with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they
> "didn't
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers
> are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should.
Simon
--
A complex system t
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:00:30PM +0100, TimSC wrote:
> For the conditions for relicensing our individual contribution's, I
> propose the following. Each "data object" (either a node, way or
> relation) have one or more authors. For each data object, we will
> agree to relicense our data as ODbL,
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 04:55:36PM +1000, Liz wrote:
> just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by
> Roland Olbricht
My apologies. I didn’t mean to mis‐quote.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Ga
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 01:36:09AM +0100, I wrote:
> Getting people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t
> agree because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in
> my opinion.
The project needs to understand the consequences of a license change,
this one or any futur
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote:
> - There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But
> this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the
> legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let
> develop
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Notice the absence of any "or later" clause here. This means that if
> ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we
> would have to go through the whole "2/3 of active members have to
> accept" poll to upgrade.
I
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:08:07AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> At this stage I'm against the process, not the new license, but of
> course you completely missed what my motivation is, which is making an
> informed determination if the loss is acceptable or not, if it isn't
> and ODBL still goes ahea
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
> * It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated
Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem
with the license. Unfortunately people thought that because laws about
rights to data
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:14:46PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> And that's where the fear comes in, just because you may have good
> intentions doesn't mean that it won't harm my goals.
Did you think there would be no losers? The project can’t please
everyone. If you care that much, why not campai
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more
> than obvious I'm bucking the trend...
Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so
vocal… ;)
Simon
--
A complex system that works is inva
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 07:40:09AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 16 July 2010 01:15, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you define your
> > limits, every single member of the LWG defines theirs, lots of other
> > contributors do too. We now have a big
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:13:07PM +0100, 80n wrote:
> The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project
> is to fork it.
How about we do the significant changes and anyone unhappy with them can
fork it? That works too.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariabl
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote:
> Interesting. That is a lower figure than I personally was envisioning when we
> made the above definition, and therefore potentially disenfranchising of
> genuine OSM community. Perhaps we should review it, 3 calendar months in th
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Unless you're willing sign something that says "I agree that OSMF will
> make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with
> information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and
> if I don't r
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 will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
> why, while desi
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 will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
> why, while desi
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:21:41AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
> i'm both a producer and a consumer of OSM data. and i do care about
> contributing back, which is why i'm volunteering my time to help
> replace the broken license we currently have with one which works,
> rather than behaving in a deroga
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
> any change away from that must be "chosen by a vote of the OSMF
> membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
> contributors."
I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I
actually think it sho
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
> any change away from that must be "chosen by a vote of the OSMF
> membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
> contributors."
>
> if you want to be consulted about any future licensing change, just
> join OSMF or conti
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:33:44PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> back, and that having changed licences once it's important that OSM be
> able to change/upgrade/whatever the licence in the future
I believe the contributor terms are too broad. I answered the poll in
favour of moving to the ODbL, but f
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:24:47PM +, 80n wrote:
> Any share-however-you-like license has the properties you describe. We're
> talking about share-alike here.
>
> 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 i
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 07:09:30PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote:
> I believe there was a discussion that "viral" does necessarily mean
> "reciprocal", hence the use of the word. I'll check tomorrow if no one else
> comes back.
If you get down to various meanings already documented in English,
nei
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:43:09AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > but while we’re
> > trying to prevent all sides equally
>
> Preventing all sides equally is indeed something we're aiming at, with
> all our hearts ;-)
Yes, thanks for that. I noticed not long after I sent the mail, but
didn’t
I’ve received the mail, answered the poll, and also the preference poll.
In the preference poll, I understand the term “viral license” but ask
that people refrain from using that term: It has the implication that
it is a bad thing - it may be in some peoples’ minds, but while we’re
trying to prev
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:30:01PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If you have enough room then we prefer the URLs for OSM and CC written
> out. There is some info here:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F
Now that we
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:14:49AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> What I'm concerned with is mainly: How big is the risk of someone
> "whitewashing" our data from the contractual part of the ODbL, then
> introducing it to a large jurisdiction without something like a database
> directive (the US?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:42:33AM -0700, SteveC wrote:
> Basically, what do we feel substantial means when someone takes some
> part of the data? How much is 'substantial'? I won't frame the
> question further as I can see a number of ways and we, the license
> working group, would like to get a f
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:39:01AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> What I wanted to say was that, to a certain degree, *any* certainty is
> better than a random assortment of "may", "might", "the project
> consensus seems to be that...", "i am not a lawyer but...", "depending
> on your jurisdictio
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 06:59:44AM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> There seems to be a lot of emotion here, but if cost(CC-By-SA) >
> cost(ODbL) + cost(switching)
Some of us are not sure that this is currently the case.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:26:14PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > why are we bothering with switching OSM to 1.0 at all?
> > Why not just wait for the 1.1 fixed version?
>
> 1) Because ODbL 1.0 is better than C-By-SA
So far that is one thi
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:30:33PM +1100, Liz wrote:
> I don't find a telephone conference acceptable.
> While Frederick mentions the troubles of language, I don't want to be on the
> phone at 0200 local time. I'd rather be asleep, and my critical faculties
> probably would be asleep at that time
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 01:23:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I agree with both points, but I would like to try and be pragmatic:
> Don't throw out the reverse engineering clause; just add a clause that
> explicitly permits releasing Produced Works under a number of named
> share-alike licens
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 07:19:50PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> yesterday. (I'm a bit miffed that neither you nor any of the respondents
> seem to follow relevant stuff on the Wiki. Or well, maybe you all did
> and just found my contribution not worthy of note. Sigh.) In that
> section, I make
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 08:15:23PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Very often CC-BY-SA items will be conveyed with contractual
> > restrictions: Andy A cited the other day that the cycle map has its own Ts &
> > Cs, for example.
>
> So has CloudMade; they say that you ma
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 01:40:47PM +0100, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org
wrote:
> * Waivers : thankfully I cannot legally waive my moral rights in my
> country, but I think it is unfair to require this form any person in the
> world.
While I agree to collective attribution, I share some of
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:08:58AM +, Peter Miller wrote:
>> I do not read the ODbL this way. I read that only persons bound by the
>> license/contract are prohibited from reverse engineering.
>> Clarification here is needed.
>
> When we find an issue like this then lets document it on the w
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:05:00AM +, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> > This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not
> > working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s
> > far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of
> > it.
>
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 07:22:36PM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Why? If the owner of the data ever shows up, they can 1) agree to any
> changes in the license, or 2) ask to have their data removed. I don't
> see much value in removing the data now on the chance that we might have
> to remove
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 ownership of your edits.
This needs a safeguard to allow for email
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:35:21AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Simon Ward wrote:
> >> this could mean that
> >> anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly
> >> have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:58:04PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> "Having to grant access to pgsql data base"
> ---
>
> In this use case we look at someone who does nothing more than taking
> OSM data and rearranging it according to fixed rules, e.g. by runn
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:42:57PM -0500, John Wilbanks wrote:
> I am not speaking for CC the organization here - there have been no
> conversations to my knowledge about doing a compatibility check between
> ODbL and CC licensing. But, I would remind everyone that the current
> official CC poli
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 06:41:11AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Some people called Wilson Sonsini have advised us to use ODbL in a manner
> which is not, AIUI, the manner recommended by the licence co-author, who one
> would presume understands these things.
>
> And here I am debating with an
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 05:41:41AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> sward wrote:
> > Communications with Jordan have apparently broken down.
>
> Mikel's e-mail of 15th Jan, which post-dates the minutes you're quoting
> from, said Jordan had been involved in a meeting with them the previous day
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 04:07:38PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> > By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts for
> > review,
>
> I don't understand what an open development process for a legal document
> would look like if not iterated drafting and comment.
> There should be anot
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> sward wrote:
> > By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts
> > for review, OSMF have forced the process to involve rounds
> > of consultation.
>
> It's not OSMF's licence. It is a third-party licence which O
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:33:14AM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> I am really worried, when I see the chairman of the OSM Foundation making
> these kind of oversimplified statements
Sounded like sarcasm making light of the situation to me.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote:
> With mapping data, you don't need to worry about DRM. As the world moves to
> a net-based economy, commercial service providers will be able to restrict
> you from viewing / downloading their maps whole sale.
/me awaits the Affero ODbL
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:17:44AM -, Peter Miller wrote:
> Thanks, a nice Use Case. I have just added it to the wiki so we can get a
> legal opinion on it. This Use Case makes it clear that the use of the public
> transport data must be protected …
Personally I think public transport data sho
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
