Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: > In the mean time, could I suggest that other mappers > don't start replacing my contributions just yet. Speaking personally: sure. I'm happy to leave your stuff alone for a week. I think replacing Etienne's contributions in the areas I'm interested in will keep me busy enough! :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6604597.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Trail markers
A couple of days ago I spotted a couple of marked trails that I'd not seen before. Before I spend a fruitless half-hour trying to google for a picture (unfortunately neither has a description on the trail marker) could anyone point me in the direction of a gallery of such things? I'm sure that there's a Flickr group or some such somewhere. The nearest that I've found is the LDWA's list, which is good for longer ones but isn't comprehensive for short walks that a council might dream up to try and get the locals off their sofas. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 7/20/2011 11:29 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 20 July 2011 17:25, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this at their most recent meeting... They have now done so! Yes, I've seen -- and that's great. Once OSMF have confirmed that this is their view too (or that LWG are authorised to speak for them on this matter) then I'll happily sign the CTs. :-) I'm curious how the OSMF saying something magically makes it more valid than the LWG saying it, given the LWG is a body run by... the OSMF? Hopefully this won't take too long. In the mean time, could I suggest that other mappers don't start replacing my contributions just yet. I'd hate for people to waste their time replacing stuff that (hopefully) can be kept anyway, or (worse) replacing things with inferior versions because they can't replicate everything I've tagged from other sources. Robert. "In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: "The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from or are derived from third parties is: "1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. We also stress "reasonably certain" rather than "must" because we recognise that most contributors are not lawyers and do not have access to one. If in doubt, consult the wiki or mailing lists to see what the community thinks or knows. "2) To give the OSM community and the OSMF the ability to remove data that should not be distributed as part of the OSM database. "Should the license change in the future, continued distribution of some data that comes from or is derived from third parties may no longer be possible. If this happens, it will have to be removed. This will be the responsibility of OSMF and the OSM community at that time. It is not necessary for current contributors to make guesses." (from https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_123cdchck62&pli=1) cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 09:25 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> > There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few
> > weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this
> > at their most recent meeting...
>
> They have now done so!
Looks interesting, I'll certainly be reviewing it once the minutes have
been adopted but doesn't section 8 ("This is the entire agreement
between You and OSMF which supersedes any prior agreement, whether
written, oral or other, relating to the subject matter of this
agreement.") bit of the CTs invalidate this?
Regards,
Andy
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 20 July 2011 17:25, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: >> There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few >> weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this >> at their most recent meeting... > > They have now done so! Yes, I've seen -- and that's great. Once OSMF have confirmed that this is their view too (or that LWG are authorised to speak for them on this matter) then I'll happily sign the CTs. :-) Hopefully this won't take too long. In the mean time, could I suggest that other mappers don't start replacing my contributions just yet. I'd hate for people to waste their time replacing stuff that (hopefully) can be kept anyway, or (worse) replacing things with inferior versions because they can't replicate everything I've tagged from other sources. Robert. > "In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: > > "The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from > or are derived from third parties is: > > "1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be > distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in > clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. We also > stress "reasonably certain" rather than "must" because we recognise that > most contributors are not lawyers and do not have access to one. If in > doubt, consult the wiki or mailing lists to see what the community thinks or > knows. > > "2) To give the OSM community and the OSMF the ability to remove data that > should not be distributed as part of the OSM database. > > "Should the license change in the future, continued distribution of some > data that comes from or is derived from third parties may no longer be > possible. If this happens, it will have to be removed. This will be the > responsibility of OSMF and the OSM community at that time. It is not > necessary for current contributors to make guesses." > > (from https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_123cdchck62&pli=1) > > cheers > Richard -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: > > There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few > > weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this > > at their most recent meeting... > > They have now done so! > > "In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: > > "The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come > from > or are derived from third parties is: > > "1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be > distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in > clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. Well, I'm reasonably certain that the Ordnance Survey have not permitted their content to be licensed using the DbCL. While they may have stated that their content can be distributed as part of a database that licensed under ODbL they made no reference to what content license should be used. This was probably an oversight, but with an explicit statement about which content license is applicable the default assumption has to be that their content is still published with *only* an OS OpenData license not with a DbCL license. I'm sure if I'm wrong about this someone will be able to point me to the statement where this is covered. 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: > There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few > weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this > at their most recent meeting... They have now done so! "In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: "The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from or are derived from third parties is: "1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. We also stress "reasonably certain" rather than "must" because we recognise that most contributors are not lawyers and do not have access to one. If in doubt, consult the wiki or mailing lists to see what the community thinks or knows. "2) To give the OSM community and the OSMF the ability to remove data that should not be distributed as part of the OSM database. "Should the license change in the future, continued distribution of some data that comes from or is derived from third parties may no longer be possible. If this happens, it will have to be removed. This will be the responsibility of OSMF and the OSM community at that time. It is not necessary for current contributors to make guesses." (from https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_123cdchck62&pli=1) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6603389.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
