[OSM-legal-talk] Interpretation of e-mail needed

2010-09-23 Thread olvagor
Hi, I requested permission to import routes of submarine cables from several providers [1]. Today I got an answer of a US-based provider and I need a little help interpreting it: You can get cable locations if you search hard enough - all routes have to be submitted to various public

[OSM-legal-talk] Attribution in digital services like WFS

2010-09-23 Thread Jukka Rahkonen
Hi, It is easy to deliver OSM vector data through WFS service as gml http://188.64.1.61/cgi-bin/tinyows?service=wfsversion=1.1.0request=getfeaturetypename=osm_polygonmaxfeatures=20 or as json if gml does not feel comfortable

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?

2010-09-23 Thread Steve Bennett
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later under the ODbL. In order to do so it needs to have permission to do so. Clause 2 gives this permission. OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/ag ainst clause 2 of CTs?

2010-09-23 Thread Ed Avis
Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap@... writes: In the current process, data from contributors who individually agree to re-licence their edits will be included in the ODbL release of OSM and data from those who refuse will not be included, but there are a large number of past contributors who

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?

2010-09-23 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later under

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?

2010-09-23 Thread Steve Bennett
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I guess clause 2 is redundant.  It would be sufficient to simply say contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL. Except that Clause 3 contains or another free and open license. But otherwise, yes, that does