Heiko,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing
data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all
have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data?
Because. as I explained to you yesterday, CC-BY-SA does not allow
redistribution of data
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Heiko,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing
data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all
have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data?
Because. as I explained to you yesterday, CC-BY-SA does not allow
On 5 August 2010 18:04, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I don't want youre private guesses.
I want to have official facts.
Unless someone sues another in court over this issues, you are only
going to get guesses.
What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too?
The
On 08/05/2010 12:11 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 21:02, Grant Slateropenstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 4 August 2010 22:25, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than ODbL, as
it has been well checked and has government use.
On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're
not meeting the deadline.
On Aug 5, 2010, at 6:43 AM, SteveC wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then
Liz wrote:
As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than
ODbL,
as it has been well checked and has government use.
No. It isn't that simple.
Two recent, very high-profile judgements in Australia both repudiate the
notion that copyright can protect collections of
On 5 August 2010 22:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The conversation we had recently on this list indicated that three years
from after the next Australian election would be the minimum timescale.
That's assuming they actually have a desire or reason to change...
Otherwise it could take
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Two recent, very high-profile judgements in Australia both repudiate the
notion that copyright can protect collections of unoriginal facts. These are
IceTV vs Nine Network (last year) and Telstra vs Phone Directories
On 5 August 2010 23:12, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I am, however, sure that any legal case involving infringement of OSM data
in Australia would be judged following IceTV vs Nine Network and Telstra vs
Phone Directories, rather than following any licence which the legislature
On 5 August 2010 22:43, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a
significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward.
I'm not the one that came up with ambiguous wording for the new CTs
that makes a lot of the
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't see that's different from any other drawing,
in digital form.
It depends how creative/original it is.
No it doesn't. It depends whether or not it crosses the threshold of
On 08/05/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
The idea
that copyright does not cover maps is very strange when you consider
that.
Nobody has said that it doesn't.
The point is that Geodata is not a visual work of cartography.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk
On 08/05/2010 03:07 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't see that's different from any other drawing,
in digital form.
It depends how creative/original it is.
No it doesn't. It depends whether
On 08/05/2010 03:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
Still waiting for that definition of geodata.
It's a contraction of geographical data.
Just because the map is
in digitized vector format doesn't mean it's not a digital version of
a visual work of cartography.
The fixed form is different. The fact
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 03:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
Still waiting for that definition of geodata.
It's a contraction of geographical data.
I didn't ask for an expanded form, I asked for a definition. If you'd
like to be tricky, you can
- Original Message -
From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
[snip]
The reason for the data loss is as Frederik
On 6 August 2010 01:01, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Now John Smith in his statement above says almost nothing except CC0 and PD
data is compatible with the new contributor terms. Lets take CC0 data,
there is still a rights holder of the data, who has released the data under
CC0.
David Groom wrote:
personally I'm still waiting for a reply to the question I asked on
this list on 20 July entitled Query over Contributor Terms.
Just as a reminder, the address of the Licensing Working Group is not
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org . :)
If you have a 'blocker'-type issue and
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2010 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Call it mapping for the renderer if you want. Call it a violation
of the rules of OSM. But that's a copyrightable work.
So would any use of the smoothness
On 08/05/2010 03:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
I say such a definition is not possible to create.
Then why are you asking for one?
It is trivial to define geodata as geographical data in database form. A
rendered map isn't geodata because it isn't in database form.
The fixed form is different.
On 08/05/2010 04:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
Bottom line is it doesn't matter. Even if I broke the rules of OSM
while creating it, I'm still entitled to the copyright on my work.
If you are entitled to copyright. The point of the breaking the rules
is that the creativity/originality that breaking
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 05:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
And OSM is more than just geographical data. A way isn't geographical
data.
A way is geographical data. Or possibly geographical metadata. ;-)
I don't think so. Ways contain
The test for copyrightability is some amount of creativity. Case law
suggests that this can be very minimal. Rather than looking for what is
factual and thus not copyrightable, let's look for what is.
There are many things that meet the almost trivial threshold that legally
constitutes
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data, but they're more
than *just* geographical data.
I don't know what else
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jamie Smith jamiekrsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data,
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
They're vector graphics.
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get
rendered.
Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered?
Rendered != rasterised. The vector data has no natural visual form.
They're vector graphics.
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered.
Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered?
Rendered != rasterised. The vector data has no natural visual form.
This is supposed to be a mailing list for legal discussions
+1
On Aug 5, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
They're vector graphics.
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get
rendered.
Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered?
Rendered != rasterised. The vector data has no natural visual form.
This is
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:42:35PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only,
have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you
suggest that they should not have a choice?
Not arguing against people having a choice, but I
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:17:13PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
Except that in many jurisdictions, true PD doesn't exist like in France,
where you cannot remove the moral right of someone even if you sold your
rights.
For what it’s worth, you can’t actually remove moral rights in the UK
On 6 August 2010 06:48, Jamie Smith jamiekrsm...@gmail.com wrote:
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered.
So a SVG file isn't copyrightable, until it is rendered?
___
legal-talk mailing list
32 matches
Mail list logo
