Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

Frederik Ramm writes: >Data that is not fully relicensable, i.e. comes with strings attached, >will always be second-class data in OSM because it carries with it the >potential to cause problems. At the very least it would have to be >flagged as such. Giving everyone the opportunity to add suc

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

John Smith wrote: > On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of >> relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless. > > This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is > owned by people isn't the full store, in f

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 6 January 2011 19:53, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Relicensing through majority /does/ make sense for a collective effort > if the intention is to be actually able to perform a license change. How > many successfully relicensed movies do you know? That is of course the point, there is expectations th

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 06/01/11 01:10, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Yes, and many more, but still AFAIK a minority. In terms of the number of projects, yes. But the majority of projects are small projects. Many of the most successful projects apart from the Linux kernel in fact. They may be in the numerical min

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 04/01/11 15:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and > this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence. > (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. "If it is not practical to > cite all sources and a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: > hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon, > which is explicitly compatible with ODbL. They switched today. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-t

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 01/06/2011 12:47 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 01/06/11 11:29, Richard Fairhurst wrote: hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon, which is explicitly compatible with ODbL. They switched today. :) How can they do that without discussing it for four years in advan

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > John Smith wrote: >> On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr wrote: >>> This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of >>> relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless. >> >> This aregument you keep stating about people thinki

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: >On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson wrote: >> Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for >> governmental organisations] and I have updated > >IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating >what will h

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

At 05:04 PM 6/01/2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >Mike Collinson wrote: >> given that at least one contributor has been pointlessly editing my >> personal contributions apparently so that they are no longer "ODbL-ready", >> sickly sadly all too possible. > >That's vandalism, of course. Could you

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to do with the end user license: 4. At Your or the copyright owner’s holder’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 7 January 2011 05:14, Mike Collinson wrote: > I almost wish that Tobias Knerr's words earlier in this thread were my own: > > "The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building > a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to > each other, it's a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

On 7 January 2011 05:25, Mike Collinson wrote: > Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to > do with the end user license: > > 4. At Your or the copyright owner’s holder’s option, OSMF agrees to > attribute You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be pr

[OSM-legal-talk] US Rails to Trails database

Hi all, I'm a rank newbie at OSM, but getting into it because of my interest in mapping bike facilities. The US Rails to Trails Conservancy has an outstanding database of bicycling trails. This "Traillink" database is the basis of Google's bike layer. I've read the legal FAQs for using data from

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] US Rails to Trails database

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Richard Masoner wrote: > Hi all, > I'm a rank newbie at OSM, but getting into it because of my interest in > mapping bike facilities. > The US Rails to Trails Conservancy has an outstanding database of > bicycling trails. This "Traillink" database is the basis of Go

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 01/06/2011 07:14 PM, Mike Collinson wrote: At 05:04 PM 6/01/2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (Rather coincidentally, this was published today: http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/06/ownership/ ) What a beautifully apt cartoon! Yes, I wish I'd found it. :-) - Rob.