Re: [OSM-talk] European Data Portal declares the CC-BY 4.0 and ODbL 1.0 compatible
I've got a response from the the EDP and they agree that labelling the licences in question as "compatible" could be misleading, they have indicated that they will change the wording going forward. Simon Am 03.08.2017 um 22:50 schrieb Simon Poole: > > Currently outgoing mail from the mailing list server is experiencing > very long delays, so this is a bit late, but I tried to contact the > operators this afternoon but haven't heard anything back yet. It > should be noted that in my opinion the incompatibility is not just > with with the ODbL, but with a large number of the licenses listed as > compatible on that page. > > Simon > > > Am 03.08.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Simon Poole: >> Hi Maurizio >> >> Thank you for the pointer. >> >> I believe the error is really that they overlooked some of the finer >> points of the CC licences, but I'll see if it is possible to discuss >> this with them. >> >> Simon >> >> >> Am 03.08.2017 um 10:35 schrieb Maurizio Napolitano: >>> I discovered today a service made by the European Data Portal (EDP) >>> where you can find the list of all the most used license for open data >>> in Europe. >>> The service offers a long list where, for each entry, you can have a >>> short description about permissions and restrictions of each license >>> and also the compatibility with the others. >>> If you read the information about che CC-BY 4.0 >>> https://www.europeandataportal.eu/en/content/show-license?license_id=CC-BY4.0 >>> you find on the list of the compatible licenses also the ODC-ODbL 1.0. >>> >>> But, the License Working Group (LWG) of the OSM Foundation explained >>> that there are some issues between these 2 licenses >>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ >>> >>> and now the suggestion is to ask the permission to import the data >>> distributed under cc-by 4.0. >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqeTdWR1l3SzJVcTg/view >>> >>> The decision of the LWG is born after a discussion with the staff of >>> the Creative Commons. >>> >>> The European Data Portal is an important reference for all the public >>> administrations of Europe. For this reason I think that it's better >>> start a discussione with the EDP's staff to have a common vision. >>> >>> What do you think about? >>> Ciao >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Awards 2017
Hi folks, Yesterday a 500th OSM member has voted at the OSM Awards. And we have just a week left for the other 500 to vote. Which means you: go to the... http://awards.osmz.ru/ ...right now, read through the names and descriptions, and choose people you think should be awarded something for their work. Because you won't have another chance at saying thanks to them this year. Unless you do it directly, which is obviously better. Still, show them your support by going to the website and voting. The voting closes on 16th of August. And in a few days, at the social event of the State of the Map 2017, the winners will be announced. The blog post will follow shortly after that. Ilya ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy
Am 06.08.2017 um 23:21 schrieb molto...@gmail.com: > > If I'm reading the various opinions correctly, one seed for disagreement is > how much of a deterrent the requirement to ask for permission to use the > trademark actually is. Some see it as too high and want to make it unecessary > in more case, while some see it as low enough and are happy to use it in any > case that endangers the trademark. I believe the only common case where we are requiring permission are the domain names, which is as has been pointed out not that common as is. > > Perhaps a middle ground can be reached by adding a FAQ with clear > descriptions of the usecases where permission is certain to be granted ? > Keeping the protection in place but making it less of a deterrant. I believe we already do that in the FAQ. > > FWIW, I like the OpenThingMap and other osm wordplays naming theme. It adds > to the sense of cheerful community, with all those projects obviously being > related to OSM. This lighthearted naming should IMHO be cherrished and > enabled, but it also needs to be supervised so that it doesn't dilute the > trademark. > > I hope that the draft can be made more enabling while remaining just as > protective. > Believe me, it was always clear that the domain names would be the most discussed point (essentially nobody has commented on anything else up to now to prove that point), and if we could have done this differently we would have. Nobody denies that the word play can be fun, but you point out the issues yourself, it extends beyond the community and it doesn't jibe with trademark law in the real world. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
