On 17 July 2010 10:27, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be
able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put
to contributors.
I will, but at that point I will no longer have any chances to
exercise
On 16/07/10 14:03, TimSC wrote:
James Livingston wrote:
/ Although, as Simon Ward said Everyone has a say on whether their contributions
can be licensed under the new license., I am uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I
resent not being polled before the license change was decided. OSMF
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data.
But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data
than the legalese. Please develop the tool first or
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 04:55:36PM +1000, Liz wrote:
just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by
Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de
My apologies. I didn’t mean to mis‐quote.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we
were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely*
different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty.
On 07/17/2010 04:04 AM, Diane Peters wrote:
The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that
copyright doesn't apply to databases, is not correct.
I am sorry for misrepresenting SC's views on this.
One other point worth mentioning, this one in response to another
suggestion
On 07/16/2010 09:58 PM, Liz wrote:
After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable
to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was
the subject of the case.
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright
licences
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to change to ODBL, if that
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia?
The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show
names, IceTV who instigated this
John Smith schrieb:
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong interpretation as to the scope.
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia?
The court case in question was over facts, dates and times
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various
levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined
ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on
creativity. ;-)
On 07/17/2010 04:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various
levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined
ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright
licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On 18 July 2010 06:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
You implied one or more people made that claim, what was their
reasoning for this?
Hi,
here's an interesting one.
Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA
planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the
servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!).
Now I would like to make a slippy map overlay where
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
here's an interesting one.
Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet
has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers,
and the project is again humming
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Frederik posts many wonderful hypothetical situations. ;-)
Here's a completely hypothetical situation. What if I want to import OSM
POIs into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, of course, under CC-BY-SA.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
The user is looking at
produced works, ccbysa for the ccbysa tiles, your choice for the ODbL
tiles.
Here's another completely hypothetical situation. What if I use CC-BY-SA
for the ODbL tiles. And then someone else
On 17/07/2010, at 4:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated
Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem
with the license. Unfortunately
On 17/07/2010, at 4:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I noticed something that had escaped my attention until now. The
contributor terms say that OSMF will release the data under ODbL 1.0,
CC-BY-SA 2.0 or another free and open license accepted by 2/3 of active
members.
Notice the absence of
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Michael Barabanov schrieb:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
I know you didn't. But somebody did.
What's your source for the
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote:
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting,
Of the people?
The US and the EU, to name but two.
When did EU member nations agree to become a country?
27 matches
Mail list logo
