Some here would say that when the publisher indicates their interpretation
of the license then we can rely on that instead going with our
interpretation of the license, but I am not a lawyer.
If they can sign the LWG waiver it makes things a lot easier, but it's not
the only option.
On Fri, 23 Oc
Thanks for your thoughts Simon.
On Tue, 30 May 2017, at 06:00 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> Andrew, pls jog my memory, is the ACT data available on CC BY 4.0
terms or are the terms based on a earlier version?
It's CC BY 4.0 -> http://www.actmapi.act.gov.au/terms.html
> The problem with point 2
I contacted the ACT Government to see if they could complete the CC BY
waiver form as provided at
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/. We have
previous correspondence at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/Australian_Capital_Territory
from which the local commun
On 8 July 2016 at 23:47, Simon Poole wrote:
> Both the Horizontal Layer and the Collective Database guidelines address
> a specific de-duplication issue (in respect to the above use case): if
> you take your proprietary dataset and remove all POIs from the OSM
> dataset that exist in your data, t
According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together,
the results must be shared under the ODBL.
From my investigation it appears that the MAPS.ME app [2] is combining
OSM hotels with non-OSM hotels.
https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-1.png is a screenshot from the
app. Hotel A ap
Sorry my mistake. Thanks for picking up on that.
On 24/12/2015 9:01 pm, "Simon Poole" wrote:
> Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
> > I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC
> > BY is becoming the standard license for
I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC
BY is becoming the standard license for government geospatial data in
Australia, and it would be much simpler to interchange data both ways
if it were compatible with the ODbL.
On 15 July 2015 at 00:22, Tom Lee wrote:
> I'll a
On 22 December 2015 at 03:48, Tom Lee wrote:
> Point 1 is simple agreement.
>
> Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every
> possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as unlikely
> as any).
>
> Point 3 is the least appealing, but I would personall
e imported all LPI data into OSM and then
filtered the planet extract or API to only return LPI data, they would
need to provide LPI attribution as per their request and not just
attribute this as OSM.
On 13 December 2015 at 21:57, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert W
On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:
> If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of
> attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it
> would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to dual
> licence the data under the O
On 12 December 2015 at 04:11, Tom Lee wrote:
> Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as:
>
> - questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the
> impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution
> requirements in a geo context
> - the rightshol
We've received some correspondence from a state government department
regarding the use of their CC BY 3.0 AU licensed data and imagery
within OpenStreetMap.
One OSM member initially received the response:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/New_South_Wales_Government_Data#Cleary.27s_L
th licenses via
attribution and dual licensing of my new work.
If it's okay, then this opens up a problem that my changes can't be
incorporated into OSM which defeats the whole point of the copyleft OSM
licence?
On 23/11/2015 9:33 pm, "Simon Poole" wrote:
>
>
> Am 23.1
On 23 November 2015 at 13:27, Paul Norman wrote:
> CC BY 3.0 doesn't allow you to do this, as it requires you to impose
> conditions not present in the ODbL.
When I publish my new work, I add all the required attributions and
statements required by the CC-BY 3.0 license (in clause 4B). Are these
On 23 November 2015 at 13:06, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> To comply with the OSM data's ODBL license, my published results
> contain a notice that it is "based on data (c) OpenStreetMap
> Contributors under the Open Database License
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
I consume OSM data, adapt it for my needs by adjusting OSM geometries
to match CC-BY licensed aerial imagery, and then publish the result
publicly.
To comply with the OSM data's ODBL license, my published results
contain a notice that it is "based on data (c) OpenStreetMap
Contributors under the O
> Thanks, Jukka. I suspect that "permission" isn't actually valid, as it
> seems to extend from data.gov.au (Federal government) but most of the
> datasets there are state or territory (eg, the VicMap Rivers dataset), and
> are published on the relevant state/territory data portals (data.vic.gov.a
On 31 August 2015 at 12:05, Andrew Turner wrote:
> So a simpler route here would be to suggest "upgrading" to use CC-By 4.0?
>
> Or is Paul stating there is no known version of Creative Commons that is
> acceptable to OSM except the completely unencumbered CC0?
See https://lists.openstreetmap.or
Just found http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission
it has hints about what extra permissions we require.
On 5 May 2015 at 19:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I'm bringing up a conversation from talk-au pertaining to what
> additional permissions we need from content owne
I'm bringing up a conversation from talk-au pertaining to what
additional permissions we need from content owners in order to include
or use as a source to derive further information from their CC-BY
licensed data in OSM.
Any advice is very much appreciated.
On 16 April 2015 at 15:26, Paul Norman
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> Which non-ODBL compliant source would this be, if I may ask?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7958977
where "attribution=Based on Mosman Council data". It was CC-BY-SA.
...I also am not confident my nearmap derived data can be
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28..
> pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported
> ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters
> import ODbL-incompatible data.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst wrote a good piece on the legals around aerial
> imagery in 2009
> "Aerial photography, cock fighting and vodka bottles" -
> http://www.systemed.net/blog/legacy/100.html
Thanks for pointing me to this. Reading this, it m
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> The official Bing blog:
> http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
> published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager
Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's p
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM "yes you can
upload to OSM".
We as a community can't verify this.
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all
we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf
which we can't verify as authentic.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> the last time I read the CTs (which have several versions), there was a
> clear reference to me having the rights to the data and perpetually
> licensing those rights to another organisation
> That would stop me signing up whether I used Yah
Thanks for posting this Kai. Those comments from Creative Commons look
promising.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Kai Krueger wrote:
>
> I'd like to link to a recent interesting article on the OSM licensing change
> on LWN (Linux Weekly News) as I haven't seen it be mentioned anywhere yet.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/21/10 11:51, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>
>> I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis
>> that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled
>> wi
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> David (& some others),
>
> David Groom wrote:
>>
>> I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery
>> to create derived works, all the only answer is "we have it". As I've said
>> before if its there please show
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> We have a direct statement from Microsoft saying it's ok to trace. If that's
> "no foundation other tahn a guess & a feeling" for you then you're free to
> refrain from using Bing imagery - however I think that's bad judgement on
> your part.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> What? Oh, fuck. That's really fucking bad.
>
> So we have broken CTs, and absolutely no way to avoid them. Who the
> fuck came up with that fucking stupid policy? With the greatest
> respect for the LWG, who are acting in good faith, this str
I feel that it is not safe at this point. I have raised my concerns in
this thread
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005299.html
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Manuel Reimer
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is it secure to use Bing? Any license risks? Could Microsoft, at some
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:23 AM, 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 putti
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst 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
> th
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>> I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog post going up soon on the same
>>> topic.
>>
>> http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:34 AM, David Groom wrote:
>> Whereabouts is the "prior written consent from Microsoft" which would enable
>> us to trace and thus create derivative works?
>>
>> David
>>
>> [1] http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-det
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Sebastian Klein wrote:
> We have a ToU agreement specially designed for osm (Bing Maps Imagery
> Service Editor Application API's Terms of Use [1]) so do we even need to
> consider the general terms of use?
>
> They are both somewhat similar, though.
>
> [1] http://
Just to clarify is this
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document which
contains the license grant? Could some please point me to the section
which says derived information shall have no restriction on its use?
___
legal-talk mailing
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 to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some
new users will be shuned away while those existing users are allowed
to contribute to the proj
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Which is exactly the point, unless ODBL data can be imported (or
> traced or ) it makes little difference to me what license they are
> using, it certainly doesn't prove that it is more useful in a court of
> law that cc-by-sa.
>
> As others
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> The current contributor terms for new accounts require you grant a licence to
> the OSMF to do 'any act that is restricted by copyright', subject to section 3
> which says that OSMF will distribute under CC-BY-SA, ODbL/DbCL, or 'another
> free
> a
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20 August 2010 10:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> But mappers are not employed by OSMF, so we need some sort of
>> contract that says "I, the mapper, allow OSMF to make a database from my
>> data and publish it".
>
> This is pro
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> My statistics are of course flawed - they do not capture objects
> individually tagged source=nearmap rather than on the changeset, and if an
> object has been modified more than once in a "nearmap" changeset, it has
> been counted twice. Al
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
> However this is off topic, my concern is with innocent mistakes, and
> protecting those users from themselves.
Indeed, back to the thread topic.
New users must agree to the CT's, therefore cannot use Nearmap imagery
to trace, so having the Nea
44 matches
Mail list logo
