On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> I utterly, totally, fail to understand why one would want to copy OS data
> into OSM. If you think that OS data is good for you, just draw your map from
> OS data. If you would like OS data for your base map but cycleways from OSM
> - go
Out of interest has anyone asked the Open Data Commons people (or person) for
their opinion on the proposed contributor terms? I know the ODbL licence was
developed jointly with them but I imagine the CTs were not.
--
Ed Avis
___
legal-talk mailing
On 09/30/2010 01:43 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 September 2010 22:32, Rob Myers wrote:
And, as I say, not all GPL licenced code is grabbed by GNU.
Maybe so, but they have the option to accept it, the CT will basically
reject everything, regardless of how much it is likely to improve the
data
John Smith schrieb:
On 30 September 2010 22:32, Rob Myers wrote:
And, as I say, not all GPL licenced code is grabbed by GNU.
Maybe so, but they have the option to accept it
No, they don't, as they require a strong and complete copyright
assignment to them for any code they incorporate (and
On 30 September 2010 22:32, Rob Myers wrote:
> And, as I say, not all GPL licenced code is grabbed by GNU.
Maybe so, but they have the option to accept it, the CT will basically
reject everything, regardless of how much it is likely to improve the
data set...
On 09/30/2010 01:06 PM, John Smith wrote:
GPL started because Richard
Stallman shared code with a company and they refused to share the
changes back.
I assume you're referring to the Lisp Machine Wars. The company was
Symbolics. Their appropriation of AI Lab code was the latest symptom of
th
Richard Fairhurst writes:
>>Although the ODbL would allow others to take the OSM data and combine it with
>>other ODbL or permissive-licensed data sources, the OSM project could not do
>>likewise.
>
>The Contributor Terms are the _standard_ agreement between contributors and
>OSMF.
>
>But they
On 30 September 2010 22:02, Rob Myers wrote:
> Commons are for people. Share-alike exists to protect people's ability to
> always use resources in the commons. Not to return resources to upstream
> projects.
>
> Consider the example of the GNU project, which doesn't accept code just on
> the basis
On 30 September 2010 21:51, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> The Contributor Terms are the _standard_ agreement between contributors and
> OSMF.
I can't be bothered searching for it and I'm paraphrasing, but
Frederik posted to one of these lists that it was only likely 2 or 3
exemptions to the CTs woul
On 09/30/2010 12:10 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
However, under the proposed licence change and contributor terms, OSM would not
be able to participate fully in this commons. Although the ODbL would allow
others to take the OSM data and combine it with other ODbL or
permissive-licensed
data sources, the
Ed Avis wrote:
> However, under the proposed licence change and contributor terms, OSM
> would
> not be able to participate fully in this commons. Although the ODbL would
> allow others to take the OSM data and combine it with other ODbL or
> permissive-
> licensed data sources, the OSM project
>Let me explain a little more why I think the question of 'could this data be
added to OSM?' is relevant.
As I see it, one intention of the ODbL, and other copyleft licences such as
CC-BY-SA or the GPL, is to form a 'commons' where different works can be
combined
and mixed. In the case of the OD
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Which is exactly the point, unless ODBL data can be imported (or
> traced or ) it makes little difference to me what license they are
> using, it certainly doesn't prove that it is more useful in a court of
> law that cc-by-sa.
>
> As others
On 30 September 2010 18:24, Rob Myers wrote:
> That kind of comment is just a distraction from the real issue, that people
> are adopting the ODbL.
Which is exactly the point, unless ODBL data can be imported (or
traced or ) it makes little difference to me what license they are
using, it cer
On 30 September 2010 18:31, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 09/30/2010 02:56 AM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> Those sorts of comments are made to distract from the real issue, that
>> they know that the license is most likely incompatible, and because it
>> most likely won't effect them personally. Yet they hold
On 09/30/2010 02:56 AM, John Smith wrote:
Those sorts of comments are made to distract from the real issue, that
they know that the license is most likely incompatible, and because it
most likely won't effect them personally. Yet they hold stead fast to
the current course of things regardless of
On 09/30/2010 05:01 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 September 2010 06:34, Frederik Ramm wrote:
This is about the ODbL being adopted by others, thus showing that it is not
just OSM who believe that it is good.
What about Ed's question, regardless if the information is useful for
OSM or not, could
17 matches
Mail list logo
