On 2 Mar 2009, at 07:38, Gustav Foseid wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Frederik Ramm
wrote:
Not so, it turns out; the "Produced Work" freedom allows us to combine
OSM data *only* with other data whose license does not prohibit the
addition of constraints, because ODbL mandates that we
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>until recently I was under the impression that with the "Produced
> Work" freedom we would finally be able to create, say, a map that
> combines content from other "copyleft" licenses like CC-BY-SA-NC or GFDL
> with OpenStreetMap c
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:11 AM, wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've attempted to illustrate ways to use the OpenStreetMap database under
> ODbL and comply with the ODbL obligations.
>
> legal-talk: patches welcome!
> talk: perhaps you'll find the illustration instructive without having to
> participate in
Hi,
Grant wrote in his announcement:
"... Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to
build a suitable home where a community and process can be built around
it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons
http://www.opendatacommons.org.";
In my opinion, the ODbL is a
Hi,
80n wrote:
> I can imagine a scenario where, for example, Google uses Amazon's Mechanical
> Turk to pay lots of people to use Map Maker to trace from OSM's rendered
> tiles.
Is this a scenario we could try to fight when it happens, instead of
complicating things upfront, or would it be too l
On 2 Mar 2009, at 08:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>Grant wrote in his announcement:
>
> "... Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to
> build a suitable home where a community and process can be built
> around
> it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons
> ht
On 2 Mar 2009, at 08:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> "This license explicitly allows the distribution of a Produced Work
> under any of the following licenses: GPL v2 or later, GFDL, CC-SA,
> CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-SA-NC. In addition, a Produced Work may be distributed
> under any other license that compli
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
> When we find an issue like this then lets document it on the wiki and
> move on to the next topic.
If we move too quickly then the importance of the topic may not be
understood by many, and the Wiki page later brushed aside as "minor
issues". I would like, for each t
2009/3/2 Frederik Ramm :
> 80n wrote:
>> I can imagine a scenario where, for example, Google uses Amazon's Mechanical
>> Turk to pay lots of people to use Map Maker to trace from OSM's rendered
>> tiles.
>
> Is this a scenario we could try to fight when it happens, instead of
> complicating things
Peter Miller wrote:
>Sent: 02 March 2009 8:57 AM
>To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Who is ODC and why do we trust them?
>
>
>On 2 Mar 2009, at 08:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>Grant wrote in his announcement:
>>
>> "... Therefore, we have worked wit
On 2 Mar 2009, at 09:30, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Btw, we don't have any published minutes from the OSMF for Jan or Feb
>> 09 yet so we have no visibility of what decisions they have been
>> making which is a shame. I will email them and suggest that they
>> publish them to
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Simon Ward wrote:
> 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
Hi,
OJ W wrote:
> the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data
> does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license?
You can create an image and (provided that your image is not a data
base, a distinction that has not yet been resolved) restrict copying of
the image.
This is essenti
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
> I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with
> fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed.
The licence discussion has been going on for a couple of *years* now.
It needs resolving as soon as possible.
But pe
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> OJ W wrote:
>> the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data
>> does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license?
>
> You can create an image and (provided that your image is not a data
> base, a distinction that has not yet been r
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega
wrote:
> That's called the "stupid jurisdictions" clause.
>
> Just because facts are free in your jurisdiction doesn't mean all
> jurisdictions in the world think the same. Look at the CC0 and CC-PD
> licenses.
>
Well, kind of. But would not a
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM, OJ W wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> OJ W wrote:
>>> the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data
>>> does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license?
>>
>> You can create an image and (provided that your image is not
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega
> wrote:
>>
>> That's called the "stupid jurisdictions" clause.
>>
>> Just because facts are free in your jurisdiction doesn't mean all
>> jurisdictions in the world think the same. Look at
Hi,
OJ W wrote:
> Exactly, so the ODbL has a political choice to license OSM map images
> as PD (that can trivially be made uncopiable)
I think your introduction of PD into this discussion is entirely
unnecessary.
If you make a Produced Work from an ODbL licensed database, then you can
immedi
Gustav Foseid wrote:
>
> A user in the EU downloads the database (planet.osm in OSM), modifies
> it (simplifies ways and merges dual carriageways, for instance) and
> puts this derived database (planet-modified.osm) on a FTP server,
> along with a readme.txt containing the license, in a zip file
Hi,
Jean-Christophe Haessig wrote:
> I surely understand that contributors’ names won’t disappear from OSM
> itself, however with that clause, someone might make a copy of the
> database, remove the names and redistribute it (only attributing to
> OSM), which will in effect disable the users of th
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Grant Slater wrote:
> There has been some discussion of adding a tag into the planet.osm
> header detailing that the data is licensed.
> Also adding some contract text on http://planet.openstreetmap.org/ to
> cover our non-eu-database-right friends.
Take a closer
Grant,
Grant Slater wrote:
> There has been some discussion of adding a tag into the planet.osm
> header detailing that the data is licensed.
Actually this is exactly what the license suggests:
Quoting 4.2 (b)
"[You must] Include a copy of this Licence [...] or
its Uniform Resource Identifier
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 13:28 +0100, Iván Sánchez Ortega a écrit :
> > The Factual information license, seems to be a bit schizophrenic. It says
Huh? Now there are two licenses?
> > both that facts are free, and that these free facts cannot be used without
> > including a license...
Facts are f
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Quoting 4.2 (b)
>
> "[You must] Include a copy of this Licence [...] or
> its Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [...] both in the Database [...]
> and in any relevant documentation"
Sorry, overlooked that.
If this is in the planet.osm (or
Hi,
Jean-Christophe Haessig wrote:
> Otherwise, anyone could make legal copies of nearly any photography
> (e.g. landscapes)
Photography is regarded as an art form by the law and the photographer
usually enjoys copyright because it is assumed that the selection of the
motive, and daytime, and a
80n schrieb:
> As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was
> grabbed at the last minute from here
It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment
page seem to be password protected.)
The requirement to include a copy of the license pretty much d
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 14:14 +0100, Frederik Ramm a écrit :
> No. If that were the case then OSM would have gone PD long ago and we
> would all be mapping happily instead of wasting our time trying to
> create freedom from the barrel of a license (kudos to JohnW for this
> phrase).
Ok, I beli
I'd like to clarify the reason for two (2) licenses. The FIL is being
considered for individual "atoms" of data, while the ODbL is being
considered for major chunks of the database?
Is this correct?
Would it be helpful to:
[1] Determine what is an "atom" that the FIL would apply to.
[2] Determin
Frederick Ramm wrote: "I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a
problem in this. Am I
perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree?"
It seems like some others definitely share your concern. Thank you for
bringing up the issue.
Simon Ward wrote: "It gets more difficult when you start pro
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 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
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
> I’d prefer people carry on
> discussing issues, here _and_ on the wiki,
+1... discuss stuff here, record on the Wiki, so that when the time
comes to judge whether a revised license addresses our concerns we can
tick off the issues from the Wiki pages.
Bye
Frederik
--
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
John Wilbanks schrieb:
> In terms of OKF, hosting licenses is hard, and versioning licenses is
> really hard, but OKF has been around for a while and is a solid group of
> folks. If they are going to host your license you are way ahead of the
> game in terms of having a group that is smart and
35 matches
Mail list logo
