Hello,
just transmitting the answer officially.
Emilie Laffray
On 10 February 2011 16:53, Antony Pegg wrote:
> Thanks emilie, hi John
>
> Yes absolutely fine to trace over. Or on a website. Or cache in a mobile
> app...or print out, roll it up and smoke it if you want - th
Hello,
In addition, the LWG is going to have a look at the terms for the same
reason.
Emilie Laffray
On 1 December 2010 16:07, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 02:31 PM, David Groom wrote:
>
>> - Original Message - From: "Anthony"
>>> Isn't http
ore it would be very difficult to switch to a PD or
an attribution licence. In any case, I don't particularly care but I will
respect the spirit of the initial licence (i.e. SA).
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 23 November 2010 11:33, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed, using something that is so novel and untested as ODbL to license
> OSM's work is foolish. Especially given that copyright as applied to maps
> is well established and have been in use for a couple of hundred years.
>
>
Dear Etie
On 17 November 2010 11:00, Emilie Laffray wrote:
>
>
> On 17 November 2010 10:46, Ed Avis wrote:
>
>>
>> 'other such free and open licence' should change to 'licence(s)'.
>>
>
> I think we should keep the free and open as it clears
On 17 November 2010 10:46, Ed Avis wrote:
>
> 'other such free and open licence' should change to 'licence(s)'.
>
I think we should keep the free and open as it clears any ambiguities about
OSMF potentially going rogue and imposing a proprietary licence (not that I
see that happening at all). Th
which is why I
> asked if Google is now using OSM data.
>
>
I think that even an example would be nice, so more people can have a look
at what is happening. It would be best if we realized what is going on
sooner rather than later.
Emilie Laffray
___
might seem simple points but nothing is ever simple. I suspect that if
it was that simple you wouldn't need to ask the LWG in the first place.
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
hat they are talking about maps as images but IANAL.
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
k, like our other mailing lists, is
> here for constructive, positive discussion (and positive, constructive
> disagreement too), not for sending anonymous abusive emails to and/or
> regarding other people in the community.
>
Comment greatly appreciated.
Emilie Laffray
__
On 1 September 2010 09:53, Mikel Maron wrote:
> PLEASE
>
>
Indeed.
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
difficult to consider it an import. If you do then you would need to
remove also Yahoo and the rest :)
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
any jurisdictions, true PD doesn't exist like in France,
where you cannot remove the moral right of someone even if you sold your
rights.
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
start to use meaningful examples with real examples
instead of some really far fetched scenarios that are unlikely to happen in
the first place. I don't know of any sane project that would licence code
under CC-BY-SA in the first place.
Emilie Laffray
r
jurisdiction. It will be very different in France where the concept of moral
rights cannot be removed from someone. Copyrights and other "intellectual
property" mechanisms will vary very strongly between countries.
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk m
On 19 July 2010 22:07, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> > Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map
> providers
> > are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
>
> Just because e
On 19 July 2010 11:55, John Smith wrote:
> On 19 July 2010 20:45, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> > Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map
> providers
> > are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
>
> Once someone breaches contra
contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers
are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ly, I can't even find how you get on the LWG in the
> first place.
>
>
You get on the mailing by asking the phone number and the time of the next
conference call.
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
2009/9/17 Barnett, Phillip
>
>
> Although it's just occurred to me that Microsoft license their data from
> someone else (TeleAtlas?) so I'm surprised they get the onscreen credit,
> rather than the original supplier.
>
Navteq fo
lid.
I hope that someone with more legal experience will correct me there if I am
wrong.
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ot import it. It would be good for you to
test some scenarios.
Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ighted, you have access to an enormous amount of data
about natural features (I have seen a huge amount of shapefile if I remember
correctly). You may want to look at those to infer what roads could be
potentially wrong or not. But I am not sure that approach is what we want to
do with OSM.
Emilie
rises when you actually look at other map providers, which is what
we absolutely don't want in the first place.
Emilie Laffray
2009/8/12 John Smith
>
> I tried to search the list archives before posting but couldn't see
> anything about this.
>
> The problem is people not
24 matches
Mail list logo
