except
the USA there isn't this problem.
Does anyone have insight into how Wikipedia deal with this? Is it even a
concern for them, and if not, why not?
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
grant? Would the Contributor Terms deny them any of their
joint ownership rights?
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
* Tracing from maps, and from GPS tracks, is most likely copyrightable.
Although the GPS tracks are unlikely to be copyrightable.
Oops, I meant to say:
* Tracing from imagery, and from GPS tracks, is most likely copyrightable
Work 100% faithfully from the Derived
Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of the
information required to create the Produced Work?
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 11/28/11 10:43, 80n wrote:
If you cannot reproduce the Produced Work 100% faithfully from the
Derived Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of
the information required to create
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 11/28/11 11:58, 80n wrote:
That's a very fine line you are trying to draw.
Yes, I agree it is difficult. I think that it is entirely possible to
arrive at an identical end product through different
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I see that you and Frederik disagreed here. (FWIW I think he is right -
a PNG
file can clearly be seen as a database of pixel values. It is an
from it and tracing.
80n
[1] You have to do this step because any unfriendly publisher would block
the use of the ODbL content directly by simply refusing to agree to the
Contributor Terms.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have made
some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to vouch for
the data and accept the CTs?
This seems simple. All you need to do is
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote:
Hi,
On 09.08.2011 22:43, 80n wrote:
Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale,
for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going to happen.
You're wrong with this. At least in the country
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote:
You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the
transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not
someone else's benefit, but a
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
As I do not agree with the CT and did not click
the right checkbox, I have been blocked contributing access.
** **
OSM promised me that my contributions to be removed in the
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Rather, it's this: in the absence of enforcement, good guys will comply
with
the licence voluntarily, and bad guys won't.
In the absence of enforcement they good guys will comply with the license if
they can. If
and so you'll get your CT+CC-BY-SA by default anyway (but
then I have issues with the CTs as well so it's no solution for me, which is
why I created f...).
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list.
Apologies.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote:
**
If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have
data.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
editing of *existing* content that is the breach, not the
contribution of pure new content in a previously mapped area or when
an import is performed without reference to existing content.
IANAL etc
On 4/17/11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed
the actual relicensing, since what remains is
the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone
mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus,
not breaching the CC license.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It would seem to me
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'd hate to see someone go and say we don't want your contribution. But if
any mapper really believes that at some point in the future, they will want
to withdraw their data from OSM because 2/3 of mappers choose a free
.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
wrote:
IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as
CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only
On 17 April 2011 12:09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I asked a similar question in
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html
and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is
that most likely your contribution in this case
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under
any other license than CC-BY-SA?
I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to
those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a
little clearer.
Suppose
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 19:29, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not clear about what you mean here. Can you spell it out please?
What does 'it' refer to in this sentence? why do you say obviously?
And in what sense you mean can
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people
on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data
or
requiring every
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 19/12/10 10:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Where is this direct statement from Microsoft that says derived
information from aerial imagery delivered through their map api can be
licensed under a CT compatible license?
license agreements in my time so nothing unusual about
this one.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
Download the license from the OpenGeoData post, it is called Bing
Maps Imagery Editor API License FINAL.pdf
That's quite curious. Several non-Microsoft sources have indicated that the
license will be subject to
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard
that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the
control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the
On 12/9/10, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that, even more than free and open, share-alike is a term that
is very difficult to define, and if one tries to define it, one will
already have written half a new license.
Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF
a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to
their personal rights. I
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can
from *ever* being hijacked.
I, for one, certainly want to ensure that whoever runs OSM at some
indeterminate point in the future can not pervert the principle on which I
made my contributions. Anything less is unacceptable and is disrespectful
to those who built OSM in the first place.
80n
[1
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
On 01/12/10 08:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Andrew Harvey wrote:
Just to clarify is this
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document
which contains the license grant?
No; the document is the one
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
I work with databases every day and I don't understand how the 'database'
versus 'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in
particular.
Imagine a database of names, song
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL
doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.
And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload
their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users
should not be required
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Martijn van Exel wrote:
If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute
the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Consider this case: someone wants to use
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
You are not free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are simply
avoiding
it by not publishing the combined work.
The ever-unreliable dictionary on this Mac defines publish as print
(something
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
(*) But is this really the policy wanted? So an individual contributor has
no
choice - they have to grant an unlimited licence and suck up any future
licence
changes. But a third party can veto licence changes - or insist
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
I see the example. Are you saying that this is a problem? It
looks perfectly fine to me.
Depends what you mean by problem.
If I were to contrast Scenario A (applying styles programmatically
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 11/17/10 10:46, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
Looking at this the eyes or a data-holder, say the OS, who is
considering allowing data to be used this would be a big concern as
the term means they would lose
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
Last night a friend contacted me to told me that the guys from Nike
Chile were using OpenStreetMap for the map of their weekend event
Cruce de Chile, a 300Km Relay race from the top of the Andes in
questioned you about it on the 80n mailing list, he
apparently moderated my post.
Steve, I assume you are referring to this mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork
I've pasted your account settings below. As you can see your account is not
moderated, and as far as I know, has never been
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
In my opinion, the license must be chosen according to what's best for the
project in the long term; short term considerations should not apply.
Admissible reasons for not using license would be, for example,
... that
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/24/2010 02:06 PM, 80n wrote:
From OS I have a a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive
licence. But for the CTs I need a worldwide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive, perpetual, *irrevocable* license
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
On 16 September 2010 19:29, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 16/09/2010 16:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
If it isn't will this mean previous traced/imported Opendata will have
to
be removed?
Dave Hanson relicensed the TIGER data under CC-BY-SA when he contributed it
to OSM. If you received it from him you have to comply with his license
terms.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
with my eyes firmly on the upcoming license change, I
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
80n,
80n wrote:
Dave Hanson relicensed the TIGER data under CC-BY-SA when he contributed
it to OSM. If you received it from him you have to comply with his license
terms.
Just to be clear again, we're only using
the way/info to the suggested OSM email address/people at OSM(read
previous dialog in this thread) earlier today after having been advised(by
Richard and 80n I believe) to do so.
Eric, to be clear about what I advised - you should take this up directly
with Google, as you are the copyright holder
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:58 AM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Sam Larsen wrote:
Eric,
Unless you post the details of this edit on the list
initially.
80n
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote:
Perhaps someone who knows can answer my original question... does Google
MapMaker use(according to the OSM license) OSM data? If not, then perhaps
the person/people whom typically deal with these matters can
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
If you
render as a PNG, without additional metadata you are similarly going to
have difficulty reverse engineering it (admittedly more difficulty than
with vector graphics, which much more closely resemble the geodata).
The
.
This kind of response reinforces the impression that many people are now
getting of how OSM is being run.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they
choose
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:14 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:44 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
wrote:
1) Those who do not want to, or can not. agree to the CT's and make
are
those who have not:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g51/80n80n/osm/cc-by-sa.png
Enjoy.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
?
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 August 2010 19:58, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious about the meaning of the word irrevocable in the
contributor
terms.
Having examined a number of licenses that grant a similar range of rights
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote:
- Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
wrote:
b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or
CC-BY-SA clause that has
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2010 19:42, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the criteria in the EU? Do you know?
own intellectual creation
Article 3(1) of 96/9/EC:
1. In accordance with this Directive, databases which
in a little more than three weeks from now, which would be, um,
September 1st.
Go on, you haven't got the guts to call a vote.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi
wrote:
80n 80n...@... writes:
There are many things that meet the almost trivial threshold that legally
constitutes creativity. Road classification, land use, abstraction,
generalization, selectivity, arbitrary
The test for copyrightability is some amount of creativity. Case law
suggests that this can be very minimal. Rather than looking for what is
factual and thus not copyrightable, let's look for what is.
There are many things that meet the almost trivial threshold that legally
constitutes
splits handled (only one half of the way will have a full
history)?
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
Does anyone know whether the code exists to do this yet?
I doubt it.
How are way splits handled (only one half of the way will have a full
history)?
I think they can be auto-detected (i.e
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... ]
September 1st represents
a reasonable timeframe, based on the currently published implementation
plan
Dear 80n,
Absolutely not.
From
and contact law which is
notoriously complex and varies greatly across juristdictions, you have a
very impractical mess on your hands - good luck with that.
This medicine is much worse than the illness it is trying to cure.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing
, such as Baker
McKenzie, got buried?
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
2010/7/23 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es
El día Friday 23 July 2010 15:02:19, Alex Protyagov dijo:
Would you please educate me on what legally should be done in order to
develop a commercial application that uses cached maps from
openstreetmap.org ?
You just have to comply
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:26 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote:
Apologies if this has been brought up before.
The last line of para 1 of the contributors terms states You have
explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents.
Given the scope of the
.
ODbL is something completely different. In addition the content license
and the contributor terms have no parallel with CC-BY-SA. Structurally
there are big differences.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright
licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
I know you didn't. But somebody did.
What's your source
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com
wrote:
Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
Everyone
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 16 July 2010 20:23, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
No, he was making the point that CC-BY-SA has 100% support amongst all
the contributors, since we all agreed to it, and is using that to
suggest that
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.netwrote:
On 14/07/10 04:12, 80n wrote:
The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
What large body of people holds that opinion, such that you can be so
dogmatic?
The correct way to make any significant
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed
to
drag on for another 5 years if necessary.
That's not quite true, and I think
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
I whole-heartedly disagree. Do you think that wikipedia should have
forked for their relicensing
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of
democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they
are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
80n schrieb:
CC-BY-SA doesn't require contribution back but it does *permit*
contribution back. That's an important distinction.
We're currently working on the assuption that you can comply with
CC-BY-SA by giving
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
80n schrieb:
Attribution is dealt with by entries on this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution
I suppose that's ok for OSMF itself. But if someone wants to use an OSM
map in a book or a flyer
be bothered to, then the feedback mechanism breaks.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
an
intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company
A to warrant that they are not using an intermediate database.
What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is
involved in the process?
80n
To use a simple example, let's say I build a WMS
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their
intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an
intermediate database
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
What kind of duck test
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data
isn't. you have
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the on the
ground rule
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Why not?
The code is in svn and has been for ages,
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM,
Intellectual Property
Office and should get processed any day soon.
It seems however that all that does is update the IPO's registry records. A
separate assignment is required to actually transfer the IP from Steve to
OSMF. This is in hand, and will probably be dealt with at Thursday's board
meeting.
80n
available. It is only available under OdbL.
The incentive to reverse engineer a produced work would be to create map
data that isn't constrained by the OdbL. This modification would allow that
to happen. This is unsatisfactory.
80n
___
legal-talk
in when someone uses it.
80n
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Mike Collinson wrote:
If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it
is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced
Work.
We can clearly
unusable.
Given that we have a goal of going from 100,000 contributors to 1 million
complexity is something that will cost the community a lot. On my personal
list of issues complexity is one that I consider to be a show stopper.
80n
2009/3/21 Jean-Christophe Haessig jean-christophe.haes
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:49 AM, 80n wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com
wrote:
We didn't understand the negative aspects of the CC-By-SA, but we used
*it*. Are you saying that OSM
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote:
The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for
CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole.
If you want to
a
solution.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
flawed. It fails to achieve what it is trying to do. A rethink is
required.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
thing to happen.
More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what contributors
will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every respect.
80n
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
