davespod writes:
> Jukka Rahkonen writes:
>
> >I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are
> > effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways
> > tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not
> > copyrightable.
> > Everybody can use
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Yup. But then again, by the time data has lapsed it is very likely
> to be utterly useless. I am 99% certain that in 10 years time you
> *will*, for most use cases, be able to get data that is more current
> than OSM and has less rest
Hi,
Emilie Laffray wrote:
While I am not a legal expert, I will try to answer that one.
Companies can already make money from OpenStreetMap: there are plenty of
examples around (Skobbler, Cloudmade, Geofabrik, etc). There is
nothing preventing a company from using the data. However, they a
(moving this thread to legal-talk)
Valent:
AFAIK with new Contributor Terms [1] all data entered into OSM can be
taken by some company, closed and they could create a product made
profit on it.
Grant:
No, they have to make the data available. The data is share-alike.
http://www.opendatacommo
On 08/19/2010 02:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Please don't refer to something as "stealing" where it's not a process of
the previous owner unrightfully losing something and not having access to it
any more.
Unless it's stealing someone's idea, st
On 19 August 2010 18:13, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Yup. But then again, by the time data has lapsed it is very likely
>> to be utterly useless. I am 99% certain that in 10 years time you
>> *will*, for most use cases, be able to get data
I'm some what concerned how easy it is with potlatch for new users to
activate the Nearmap layer and there is no warning that they would be
in breach of Nearmap terms as a result of agreeing to the CTs.
Already there has been a thread on the talk-au list about new
contributors that have done this,
Moving to legal-talk
Ben in future please post here.
On Aug 19, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> It is not only about NearMap, we have tens of goverment sources which
> requires attribution.
>
> It *is* talk list issue. It is about future of the project.
Not yet it isn't.
NearMap
On Aug 19, 2010, at 1:56 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 20 August 2010 05:23, SteveC wrote:
>> I think the bigger issues is NearMap mistaking the intention and the word of
>> the license. We can debate for the next millennia the meaning of a "future
>> free and open license" under the specific wor
JohnSmitty wrote:
>
> In any case going forward unless something changes with the CTs many
> many many more people will be effected by this, does the OSM APIs have
> the ability to indicate if the account has agreed to the CTs and then
> update editors to prevent certain layers from being shown.
John Smith
writes:
> Already there has been a thread on the talk-au list about new
> contributors that have done this, should their contributions be
> reverted or should they be able to unagree to the CTs?
I, for one, would like the possibility to be able to "unagree" to the
CTs without having t
On 20 August 2010 06:05, SteveC wrote:
> Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it?
The same questions have been asked about OSM-F, with more or less the
same answers...
> In their original email. I wasn't quite sure of the context, thus I wrote
> "possibly".
I
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 20 August 2010 06:05, SteveC wrote:
>> Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it?
>
> The same questions have been asked about OSM-F, with more or less the
> same answers...
Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is
On 20 August 2010 06:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think we're all at fault here because when NearMap images became availalbe
> for tracing, the whole license change process was already in motion and the
This is a symptom of a much larger problem in OSM, I wasted time
asking for an opinion on the
Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
That however does still leave the substantial portion of
mappers who have ticked the "I declare my edits to be PD" option, which
surely makes them no longer compatible with these sources. These mappers
therefore then presumably can not use those sources without being in br
On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote:
> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to
be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer,
which can't be quoted directly.
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote:
>> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
>
> At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to
> be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a
On 20 August 2010 06:35, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 388 users have declared their edits to be PD on the Wiki for a long time,
> and I don't think any of them have restricted their editing to PD sources
> exclusively.
On the other hand I know some mappers that only ever map from their
own GPS data, so
On 20 August 2010 06:40, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote:
>>> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
>>
>> At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to
>> be taken
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> NearMap have some valid things they pointed out might make the CT's better.
>> The LWG has had approximately 12 hours (from memory) to look at them, and
>> for all we know might think they're awesome and change. Maybe not. We don't
>> kno
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:43 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 20 August 2010 06:40, SteveC wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote:
Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
>>>
>>> At this point in time
On 20 August 2010 06:48, SteveC wrote:
> Where did I question it's accuracy?
You said ... "Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and
going along with it?"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.o
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
> Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't
> know.
If I, as a company director, in Australia, receive legal advice obtained for
that company, I can share it with the entire Board, and then the Board makes
the decision on with who
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
> NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data
> hostage in this way. We all have our different opinions on the license,
> but the point is that we need to do something going forward which will be
> on average better for everyone. It w
On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> > On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote:
> >> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
> >
> > At this point in time we
On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Nic Roets wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I'm trying to be on your side.
>
> But as chairman of the OSMF board, you really need to pick your words better.
> By saying "which every rational person I know thinks is the best step forward
> - the ODbL", you are implying that a lo
On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:51 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 20 August 2010 06:48, SteveC wrote:
>> Where did I question it's accuracy?
>
> You said ... "Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and
> going along with it?"
That's not me questioning their accuracy. You were saying that I couldn
On 19 August 2010 22:05, SteveC wrote:
> I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points
> to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I
> don't personally feel is very cool.
That's just another words to say "not linking the new linc
On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC wrote:
> They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike long
> predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap.
I think most problems currently with the CT is because there is too
many conflicting goals.
If OSM/OSM-F's future really is with PD then
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
> However this is off topic, my concern is with innocent mistakes, and
> protecting those users from themselves.
Indeed, back to the thread topic.
New users must agree to the CT's, therefore cannot use Nearmap imagery
to trace, so having the Nea
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
> >
> > > On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote:
> > >> Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is ver
Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
That is different, as the PD vs non-PD is "within the system" and thus there
is full accountability due to the history. That is not the case when I a
bring new data into OSM by tracing from other sources.
You should always attribute those other sources properly, thus br
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 80n wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
> >
> > > On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC wrote:
>
On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:33 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 80n wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:37 PM, 80n wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, SteveC wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, John Smith wr
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, SteveC wrote:
> NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data
> hostage in this way.
I sure hope you've tried your best to listen to their points and
explain yours, and come to an absolute impasse, before accusing them
of this in a pub
- Original Message -
From: "SteveC"
To: "Peteris Krisjanis" ; "Licensing and other legal
discussions." ; "Ben Last"
Cc: "Brad Neuhauser" ; "Pierre-Alain Dorange"
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and
OSMCont
Hi,
to give some perspective to the debate about whether or not existing
NearMap-derived objects will have to be deleted, I have summed up the
number of edits in all changesets that said anything about NearMap in
any tag (comment, source, etc).
I arrived at a sum of 1,057,549, slightly ov
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> That obviously explains why NearMap is very important to the community in
> Australia. But for the project as a whole, one million objects is really not
> something we should make a big fuss about.
I think that the people count more than the
On 20 August 2010 11:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I arrived at a sum of 1,057,549, slightly over 1 million. The total number
> of objects in Australia is 10,234,567. That means that roughly 10% of data
> in Australia might be affected by NearMap.
How much will be effected that has attribution tags?
Hi,
On 20 August 2010 03:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> one million objects is really not
> something we should make a big fuss about. [...]
> After the Haiti earthquake, 1
> million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks.
So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about?
Ho
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> My statistics are of course flawed - they do not capture objects
> individually tagged source=nearmap rather than on the changeset, and if an
> object has been modified more than once in a "nearmap" changeset, it has
> been counted twice. Al
41 matches
Mail list logo
