Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?

2010-08-08 Thread Russ Nelson
Andy Allan writes: Never mind what Richard says, there's also some other points 1) You can't actually put anything into the public domain in most jurisdictions. The best you can do yourself is use a special license, such as CC0, which achieves similar results, but strictly isn't the same

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

2010-08-08 Thread Russ Nelson
SteveC writes: As in, why is the PD camp so loud here? First and foremost, because we believe that all the licensing kerfluffle will frighten people away from using the map. Because we all want a map that will actually be USED by the most people possible. Because we aren't afraid of forks

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

2010-08-08 Thread John Smith
On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the people who think a reciprocal

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Data Definition at OSCON

2010-08-08 Thread Frederik Ramm
Russ, On 08/08/2010 06:34 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: Here are the questions we arrived at (thanks to Skud aka Kirrily Robert for taking notes): Good observations. Might be worth to discuss with folks at odc-disc...@lists.okfn.org as well. I'll forward your post there for people to be aware of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

2010-08-08 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 08/08/2010 09:25 AM, John Smith wrote: On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelsonnel...@crynwr.com wrote: copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

2010-08-08 Thread Frederik Ramm
Liz, On 08/08/2010 10:21 AM, Liz wrote: You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian coastline. I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline. Honestly, I will. Bye

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

2010-08-08 Thread John Smith
On 8 August 2010 18:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline. I'm starting to think 80n was right, if you were really serious about wanting a PD fork

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

2010-08-08 Thread Liz
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline. The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as accurate as the imported one.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

2010-08-08 Thread John Smith
On 8 August 2010 18:43, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline. The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL / BY-SA

2010-08-08 Thread Josias Polchau
Why we need a SA for all merged Data? I understand ODbL like this: If you Merge some Data with OSM Data and create something (e.g. a map) from that you have to publish the merged data under ODbL(or compatible). so why we need that? With SA we intend that no one can fork OSM under a

[OSM-legal-talk] The use of OSM images in a promotional video

2010-08-08 Thread Elliot Sumner
Hi all - I'm doing an animation for a promotional corporate video, including an animated 3D model of Sydney, which I'd like to overlay with the OSM map of Sydney. Presumably this is ok as long as I include the appropriate accreditation in the credits - could someone please clarify for me? The