Hi,
Jean-Christophe Haessig wrote:
> If section 4.7
> is where it is required to transfer the reverse engineereng clause into
> the PW’s license, why doesn’t it say so?
If I tell you "I give you this book but it must not be scanned and put
on the internet", then while I don't explicitly say "and
Le dimanche 08 mars 2009 à 22:49 +0100, Frederik Ramm a écrit :
Hi,
> Maybe those who advised you hoped that you would read the ongoing
> discussion before posting ;-)
Well, I read it, but I felt that the idea was rather dimly suggested…
> Current ODbL mandates[*]that the derivative database
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Jean-Christophe Haessig <
jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org> wrote:
>
> In fact, we might not have to define what a Produced Work is. Instead,
> we could let the producer of the derived work fully decide:
My current interpretation of the ODbL is that this is pr
Hi,
Jean-Christophe Haessig wrote:
> I posted a comment on co-ment and on the wiki use cases page, where it
> didn’t seem to belong. I was advised to post it here
Maybe those who advised you hoped that you would read the ongoing
discussion before posting ;-)
Your suggestion is similar to what I
Hello,
I posted a comment on co-ment and on the wiki use cases page, where it
didn’t seem to belong. I was advised to post it here, so here it is, and
please forgive me for the cross-posting if any of you have already read
it. Anyway, that idea seemed to hover around in the last thread.
In its cu
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
> I would be reluctant to name them. Assuming the data remains bound by
> some form of share-alike, in 50 years time, OSM or OSM derivatives is
> going to be the only database anyone ever uses for storing and
> retrieving public global mapping data. At that point, we
On 08/03/09 00:23, 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 licenses.
I would be reluctant
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Nic Roets wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller wrote:
>
>>
>> > The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for
>> > CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole.
>>
>> If you want to close the loopho
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller wrote:
>
> > The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for
> > CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole.
>
> If you want to close the loophole, you will need to get everyone to
> accept the license contr
80n schrieb:
> The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for
> CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole.
If you want to close the loophole, you will need to get everyone to
accept the license contract before letting them look at the map.
That
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 13:00 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If someone really wants to jump through these
> hoops to get it done, let him do it. I think this will be a niche
> application and, if at all, only used very seldom.
>
> And if we later find that someone is really being a thorn in our si
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 80n wrote:
> > Obviously you can create an image and license it as a Produced Work.
> > Also fairly obviously you claim that a vector image (eg SVG) is a
> Produced Work,
> > even if it contains most of planet.xml in unmodified form.
Hi,
80n wrote:
> Obviously you can create an image and license it as a Produced Work.
> Also fairly obviously you claim that a vector image (eg SVG) is a Produced
> Work,
> even if it contains most of planet.xml in unmodified form.
Not sure here. You can of course produce a Derivative Database
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> 2009/3/8 Andy Allan :
> > On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham >> gm...@gerv.net> wrote:
> >>> b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a
> >>> massive, sustained, con
2009/3/8 Andy Allan :
> On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham > gm...@gerv.net> wrote:
>>> b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a
>>> massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort
>>
>> unless they create SVG files t
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
