On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely
storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
alike. But on the use cases wiki page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
'It
On 28/02/13 08:04, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely
storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
alike. But on the use cases wiki page
The use of the term Database in an intellectual property context has
essentially nothing to do with the CS/IT concept of a database. The
statement on the wiki is correct, and Alexs statement was a bit misleading.
I don't think this discussion has made any progress since the last time
it came up.
Hello All!
First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about
what answers I would get on my questions, but some of your answers were not
what I expected, so let me reason a bit about each case and I would love your
feedback on my reasoning. Please also look on
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:
1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use
the coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our
application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Jake Wasserman jwasser...@gmail.comwrote:
'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL,
filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from
On 28/02/13 00:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never
prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you
from prohibiting stuff!
3
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 28.02.2013 01:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Just to make this one point clear:
What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy.
This is not really true. At the core of the ODbL is the idea that
produced works and derivative databases should be treated
differently, and that
On 27/02/13 20:24, Marc Regan wrote:
I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid
term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at
hand.
+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the
cloud of uncertainty around what you can
On 27/02/13 21:19, Rob wrote:
Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is
not an option.
And I'd like you to make me a sandwich.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:
It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases.
That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You
just can't prohibit people from using them freely.
- Rob.
It would prohibit me from using the CC0 license if I use any data with a
ODbL license to create a derived database.
- Svavar Kjarrval
On 28/02/13 23:49, Rob Myers wrote:
On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:
It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;
This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to
contribute to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the
The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it as
some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is a
feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug.
The public domain argument is a bit of a red herring. If OSM used a PD-like
license like PDDL
14 matches
Mail list logo
