On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog post going up soon on the same
topic.
- Original Message
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thu, 2 December, 2010 19:02:55
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog
Sam Larsen wrote:
you cannot create permanent, offline copies of the imagery
Isn't this why we couldn't use SPOT imagery for HOT in Pakistan using
Potlatch - we were only able to use JOSM ( others) due to local
caching of tiles in Potlatch. Is this an issue?
No. Caching is not
Andrew Harvey wrote:
I am yet to see a license.
http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details has a set of terms of use
embedded in the post specifically for OSM. It's a Scribd document and
therefore requires Flash Player. There is also a PDF download link. If you
are unable to see the
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Andrew Harvey wrote:
I am yet to see a license.
http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details has a set of terms of use
embedded in the post specifically for OSM. It's a Scribd document and
therefore requires
Original Message -
From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
Andrew Harvey wrote:
I am yet to see a license.
http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details has a set of terms of use
embedded
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing
it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an
equal footing with OSMF.
On 3 December 2010 14:14, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Okay, true. I still think it accomplishes something very important
which is the status quo under CC-BY-SA. OSMF doesn't get any special
rights which, for instance, a fork wouldn't have.
Ah, I see, and I'm fairly sure that wasn't what
- Original Message -
From: Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
[snipped for brevity]
Yes. I am fairly clear that some
David Groom wrote:
If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD
They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I
think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that
anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by
the chairman
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
David Groom wrote:
If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD
They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I
think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting
the licence? It does happen you know :-).
Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be
adequately explained by
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only one that sees a problem with the legal foundation of
tracing from Bing imagery? Take a look at how NearMap.com make their
imagery available for tracing. On their website along with the their
license of
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language,
unintended consequences are unenforcible.
And, actually, you can ignore that I've even said that. I don't see
the point in arguing over this. Suffice it to say
On 3-12-2010 17:23, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
Then you must have the same objection to tracing from Yahoo's imagery.
Unlike Bing, there is no specific agreement between Yahoo and OSM.
Yahoo only agreed that the act of tracing from the satellite imagery
that they host and putting the traced
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Personally I'm delighted that Bing is happy to work with us, and I think
their attitude to permitting tracing without claiming a share in any
(allegedly) resulting IP reflects very well on them when compared to Google
18 matches
Mail list logo
