On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […]
Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against
if
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:48:22AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […]
Yes,
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote:
1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus?
OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else?
Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or
minority
On 09/03/2010 10:03 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
terms. There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as
close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a
significant change.
If anyone can suggest a way
On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is
therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 02:58 PM, Anthony wrote:]
Unless you're
talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
database, anyway.
See thread title. ;-)
Okay...Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.
The answer from ODC seems to be that
On 09/03/2010 03:52 PM, Anthony wrote:
The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.
That's a different question, to which the answer is no.
On 09/03/2010 03:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
But it means, in
non-database-rights jurisdictions, that the extracted data isn't ODbL
either (unless you were dumb enough to agree to the ODbL, anyway).
It does not mean that at all. If the extracted data is Substantial
enough to be covered by copyright
On 09/03/2010 03:04 PM, Anthony wrote:
Also complicating matters is that the individual data are released
under DbCL. It's not really clear what that means in a jurisdiction
which doesn't have a database right,
The rights on the database are not the same as the rights on the
contents of the
On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The rights on the database are not the same as the rights on the contents of
the database. That's why the DbCL exists.
but it's hard to see how you can
protect an unordered (or trivially
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
But the extract is not the database. It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.
Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a*
On 09/03/2010 05:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
But the extract is not the database. It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.
Then if it contains a
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.
Agreed. All I'm saying is that ODbL appears to be equivalent to BY-SA
in this sense, not that it covers less (though, the DbCL stuff might,
see my next
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
AFAICT the DbCL reduces the effective copyright level of the contents of the
database to that of facts.
It's a great answer by Jordan Hatcher. It rests on the assumption
that OSM consists solely of factual data (or, at
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is
a good idea,
Hi,
On 3 September 2010 20:32, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems
with imports. One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the
That's true, but the poll shows the point (to the extent that polls
can show anything) that
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:). Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.
The ODbL itself does not draw a clear line between Covered Database and
Produced Work. A common definition
Hi,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is
a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:). Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.
The ODbL itself does not draw
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Then again a PNG that
simply contains a coded version of the full database would certainly be a
database as far as we're concerned.
Why would it matter?
I think it is meant as an added safeguard against reverse engineering.
ODbL already says that if you extract the
If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.
See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.
LOL, I hope you go with that definition.
Actually, I liked an
Hi,
in a recent discussion on the German OSM Intertubes, we discussed
whether ODbL would give a map producer the freedom to license his work
under a noncommercial license.
My take was yes of course, because I always thought of a map as a
produced work.
(The background was that we have
This is pretty much in line with Francis' claim about copyright being
on maps, and copyright law not stating anything about the form the map
comes in, but of course without court cases on the matter we're all
left guessing.
Next problem with the Garmin maps, suppose they use extracts from
25 matches
Mail list logo
