Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?

2011-04-18 Thread Francis Davey
On 18 April 2011 02:13, Anthony wrote: > > Presumably they would point out that the incorrect part of your > reasoning is that "Re-distribution under a licence is sublicensing and > cannot be anything else." > > Redistribution under a license is not sublicensing.  I'm not even > quite sure how you

[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor terms: errors in the Italian translation

2011-04-18 Thread Niccolo Rigacci
There are some errors in the Italian translation of the contributor terms https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms License names contains typos: * ODbl sould be ODbL (the case) * DdCL should be DbCL (b instead of d) The phrase "le quali saranno si intenderanno approvate con il voto" should be

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?

2011-04-18 Thread Francis Davey
> >> That is the situation you are describing. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the situation you are describing", but Ah, this is where we are probably at cross purposes. I am sorry for that - its been a long thread. 80n's original query concerned uploading work to OSMF by someone who has agree

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

2011-04-18 Thread Simon Ward
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen > wrote: > > Thanks Grant, > > > > I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe > > unclear: > > > > What does this phrase (about the trans

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

2011-04-18 Thread Rob Myers
On 04/18/2011 10:06 PM, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered "open knowledge" according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ . Since this is often a deciding factor for author

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

2011-04-18 Thread Simon Ward
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:12:24PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: > >“commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to > >be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just > >allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc. > > Since there are licences that explicitly

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

2011-04-18 Thread Rob Myers
On 18/04/11 22:41, Simon Ward wrote: > > The only “restriction” I have seen is that some software developers > perceive reciprocal licences as a hindrance because the reciprocal > licenses prevent them from removing freedoms from the end user. Yes they never seem to work out that they are users a