Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal or not? user srpskicrv and source = TOPO 25 VGI BEOGRAD
On 3 October 2010 01:48, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Right... and OSM needs to be usable in India too, so it must show Kashmir as > belonging to India as it would otherwise be illegal. And of course OSM must > be usable in Pakistan so it must show Kashmir as disputed territory > otherwise it would be illegal. And in China of course, we must only include > mapping that as been supervised by local goverments and done by mappers who > are approved by central government. And as for N Korea, we should probably > delete that altogether. None of those examples applies since it was a question about copyright ownership. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 3 October 2010 10:27, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:04 PM, SteveC wrote: >> Amazingly your domain name, inbox.org, is listed as owned by one Anthony >> DiPierro. > > There's nothing at all amazing about that. It was, in fact, "very > easy to discover". They seem to like wasting time on all these other pursuits, but can't be bothered to answer actual questions put to them, nor try to actually come to some kind of consensus about the CT... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:04 PM, SteveC wrote: > Amazingly your domain name, inbox.org, is listed as owned by one Anthony > DiPierro. There's nothing at all amazing about that. It was, in fact, "very easy to discover". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On Oct 2, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, SteveC wrote a > bunch of stuff. > > I'd like to further ask that you do not repost private messages on a > public message board. > > Your behavior is unacceptable, and I'm not going to respond to it with > more information for you to continue your campaign of lies and > harassment. Amazingly your domain name, inbox.org, is listed as owned by one Anthony DiPierro. So I guess what you're saying is that's not the trolling Anthony DiPierro who was subject to all those problems in wikipedia then? And it's a coincidence that your name is Anthony and you troll our groups now? Glad it's all cleared up. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, SteveC wrote a bunch of stuff. I'd like to further ask that you do not repost private messages on a public message board. Your behavior is unacceptable, and I'm not going to respond to it with more information for you to continue your campaign of lies and harassment. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
> > While we're at it - is John Smith actually Duane Groth? > > > http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01341.html > no. I know his identity and I confirm it is not Duane Groth ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On Oct 1, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Anthony wrote: > Where are you getting this information, anyway? I'd like to ask you > kindly to stop lying about me. I have never been banned from > Wikipedia. So you're not Anthony DiPierro then? Or are you merely playing with semantics that you weren't kicked, but your reverts and trolling were moderated? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro&oldid=127296822 Money quote: "Anthony is a troll if there ever was one. If needed, I can make a long list detailing his trolling, including his frivolous copyright complaints, his sabotaging of VfD, his creation of a purposeless Wikipedia fork named "McFly," and his nonsensical article edits. His useful contributions, on the other hand, are negligible. I propose a permanent ban." That all sounds very familiar. Anthony if this isn't you please do tell who you are then? While we're at it - is John Smith actually Duane Groth? http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01341.html I don't think OSM should become a honey pot or home for a loose band of trolls who've had various run ins with every other major project. > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:10 PM, SteveC wrote: >> >> >> On Oct 1, 2010, at 5:18 PM, "Dave F." wrote: >> >>> This message has gone OT. >>> >>> On 01/10/2010 19:38, SteveC wrote: Both are very easy to discover. Hell, you can even get my phone number from my website. >>> >>> What do you want, a medal? >> >> Yes please. >> >>> The hint is in the signature. >>> >>> You on the other hand actively hide your real name, >>> >>> And how does that detract from a persons argument? >> >> Because if someone is continually trolling, which is what's happening it >> isn't a mere disagreement, then it's highly relevant that the person was >> kicked out of the largest crowd sourced project for doing the same thing. >> >> >>> >>> >> >> ___ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> > Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal or not? user srpskicrv and source = TOPO 25 VGI BEOGRAD
>>those maps (the datas on them) are FREE (as long as you dont use it on >>Serbian terretory). > > This is pretty clear, then: OSM also needs to be usable on Serbian > territory, > so it can't use the maps. > I think that the argument is not that. The argument is really 'Is the Serbian government the legal successor of the Yugoslav government in Serbian territories?' Would an international court give the rights to the Serbian government? I think that there is a possibility either way - that the copyright could have expired with the dissolution of the Yugoslav government - or - that on Serbian territory the rights to Yugoslav government went to Serbia. The Serbian government thinks the second. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal or not? user srpskicrv and source = TOPO 25 VGI BEOGRAD
Hi, On 10/02/2010 03:43 PM, Ed Avis wrote: This is pretty clear, then: OSM also needs to be usable on Serbian territory, so it can't use the maps. Right... and OSM needs to be usable in India too, so it must show Kashmir as belonging to India as it would otherwise be illegal. And of course OSM must be usable in Pakistan so it must show Kashmir as disputed territory otherwise it would be illegal. And in China of course, we must only include mapping that as been supervised by local goverments and done by mappers who are approved by central government. And as for N Korea, we should probably delete that altogether. I'm not taking sides in the issue at hand; I just want to point out that "strict adherence to every national law in every country" is not out no. #1 priority, or even achievable at all. In all likelihood, OSM does and always will violate laws in some countries; we have to make a sensible choice about which laws we want to violate and where. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal or not? user srpskicrv and sou rce = TOPO 25 VGI BEOGRAD
>those maps (the datas on them) are FREE (as long as you dont use it on >Serbian terretory). This is pretty clear, then: OSM also needs to be usable on Serbian territory, so it can't use the maps. Valent T., it might be better if you talk to this person yourself and then translate the discussion into English, since the reply you quoted was a bit hard to get the exact meaning in some places. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal or not? user srpskicrv and source = TOPO 25 VGI BEOGRAD
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:02:16 +, Ed Avis wrote: > Or does srpskicrv mean that the mapping agency of Serbia is the only > entity that claims copyright, and further that it has released the maps > to the public domain? Here is his answer: Okay, even if I dont have time (this is the reason for not going on the mailing list, but you could give me the adress to subscribe to them), I am going to explain it to you: The maps were made in the 1974-1980 years by the "MILITARY GEOGRAPHICAL INSTITUTE" of Belgrade in "SOCIALISTIC FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA" 1992, Yugoslavia crashed. New countries were born: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Montenegro, Makedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.) and Serbia (and others say also Kosovo). Those maps were made by the military by them own, so something governmental. The inhabitants were buying that and its opend source as long the governement or the military says NO (and they said NO) Since the new countries exist, the VGI has NO responsibility or right to create maps of those countries, as long as they dont give an order to do so (but the didn't!) Those countries have their own geogrphical or geodesist institutes. So: the VGI is selling those OLD prints and they have still an copyright on reproduction of those papers, BUT NOT THE CONTAINED DATA !!! The VGI has only responsibility on the land of Serbia (nowadays) and there, of course I am NOT ALLOWED to use the datas! I agree that it is a grey zone, but who will say that its illegal? In my case, I am working on Bosnia (and not Croatia anymore): The VGI cannot accuse, cause they have not the right on the datas, its an own country! Bosnia has no right on the datas, cause they gave no order to be made. those maps (the datas on them) are FREE (as long as you dont use it on Serbian terretory). It is difficult to explain it for me in this language, but you can trust me, that I am right, and as normal, there are a lot of people, who think in an other way. Thinking is not enough. Knowing its better. I am working in a govermental company in germany, which is dealing with licenses and I have the knowledge. I was reading constitutions and I got in contact with the Bosnian governement and the serbian VGI. I bought those maps by my own from the VGI (yes, as a foreighner you can buy those maps, but not those which have datas of serbia on them). Everything what I am making should be confirmed ot the place, I wil go there in next spring 2011. And I will look up with my GPS if the work, I did is correct. You cannot do everything by using gps, e.g. Rivers, streams, power lines, forests, basins etc. I hope you understand me and you agree with me or better you trust me, that I am not doing anything wrong. Yours, Leo" -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
andrzej zaborowski writes: >Multiple times on these lists people have been advised to "vote with >their data". Since most contributors were not asked about the >relicense process, then, if they just agree to relicense their data >and then leave the project, OSMF will never know. Yes, it is daft that the question of 'do you agree with changing the licence' has become entangled with 'will you accept the new contributor terms'. There are those who don't agree with the project's direction, but, if their arm is twisted, will agree to relicense their data; there may be others who would prefer the ODbL but are unable to agree to the CTs since they don't own all the data they have contributed. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
