- Original Message -
From: "andrzej zaborowski"
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [DRAFT] Contributor Terms 1.2
Hi,
On 18 November 2010 11:24, Francis Davey wrote:
On 18 November 2010 10:14, Ed Avi
On 22 November 2010 22:25, Ed Avis wrote:
> 80n <80n...@...> writes:
>
>>The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced
>>that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's
>>content. I'm certain that it isn't understood by most ordinary peo
On 11/22/2010 10:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
80n<80n...@...> writes:
The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced
that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's
content. I'm certain that it isn't understood by most ordinary people.
I w
Hi Xavier,
On 22 November 2010 22:03, Xavier Loiseau wrote:
> 1. You don't have to release what you haven't got. So if the only thing
> required for your application to work is the *location* then just store the
> location and not the address. You can still dump the address to a log file
> on inp
80n <80n...@...> writes:
>The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced
>that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's
>content. I'm certain that it isn't understood by most ordinary people.
I work with databases every day and I don't
Sorry folks, but you are really kidding yourselves if you think (1) a and b
are at all workable.
On the one hand you are requiring "Joe Wellintendening Mapper" to determine
if two licenses (typically in a foreign tongue and at least one of them
rather complex) are legally compatible. This hasn't
Hi Frederik,
Thank you for your previous answers.
I sill have a couple of remarks and questions.
> 1. You don't have to release what you haven't got. So if the only thing
> required for your application to work is the *location* then just store the
> location and not the address. You can s
On 11/22/2010 07:24 PM, Kevin Peat wrote:
Are there any concrete examples of share-alike actually benefitting
OSM?
There's at least one major data contribution that came about because of
BY-SA I believe.
It seems like a good thing for software projects but for OSM I
don't really see the be
Hi,
On 22 November 2010 13:43, Johnny Rose Carlsen wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
>> On 11/21/2010 08:53 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> >
>> > Legally they might have to attribute OSM but I'm really thankful
>> > they don't, because what they have to sell is some shady software
>> > that claims to be ab
Simon Ward writes:
>I’d like to see all mandatory “agreements” to the CTs so far to be
>disregarded, and mandatory agreement to the CTs be removed for new
>sign‐ups. All users may fairly be informed about the licensing options,
>and where they can indicate their preference. At this point we
>de
Frederik Ramm writes:
>>That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new
>>licences and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a
>>guarantee beyond doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will
>>still be okay.
>
>For me, as a PD advocate,
11 matches
Mail list logo
