On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:19 PM Andy Townsend wrote:
> For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a
> "feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion
> comments shortly after they are added. There are lots of other ways of
> getting at that data as well o
Hi Kathleen, all,
Just as a bit of reference, the original intellectual property law from
1924, back when the Philippines was a territory of the United States,
didn't have this commercial-with-prior-approval second sentence and was
basically modeled after the U.S. law (government works are fully i
Given what I know about machine learning (specifically neural networks), it
would be hard to argue that the internal data generated by the neural
network could be considered a database in the legal sense. This is because
the internal data is semantically opaque and incomprehensible to humans and
th
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Now the question is if using OSM data as canvas for his work will require
> him to release it (or the data files with the drawings) under the ODbL. Do
> you agree this kind of use is leading to produced works or is there some
> doubt?
>
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Mr. Stace D Maples <
stacemap...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> One other question, and I’m just curious, not trying to start a flame war.
> Isn’t some of the data in OSM from public domain datasets? If so, what is
> the OSM rationale for placing a more restrictive licensi
On 9/23/15, Tom Lee wrote:
>>
>> I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this
>> easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly
>> query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a
>> million lat-lon pairs to store in your own databas
Hi,
If you got the coordinates of objects on your own without looking at Google
Maps or other copyrighted sources, then you should be able to publish them
on Wikipedia and on OpenStreetMap in parallel. But do not indicate
Wikipedia as the source in OpenStreetMap. Please use source=survey or
source
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
> How would the Collective Database approach work if the OSM Database must
> remain unmodified to be part of a Collective Database?
>
> The definition of Collective Database seems to be tailored to use cases
> where the OpenStreetMap database *i
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Michael Collinson wrote:
> This is a pure CC question.
>
> An organisation is making a short film/video which will be released CC-BY.
> They want to show (fleetingly) OSM map tiles ... which are CC-BY-SA- 2.0.
> Can they do that?
>
I think fair use/fair dealing
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A user on the Italian Mailing List posted this link concerning Facebook's
> integration of Wikipedia content into the so-called facebook community
> pages:
> https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721
>
>
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> > Am 06/apr/2014 um 01:24 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar :
> >
> > or if a court decision says *exactly* that it is OK to copy stuff for
> OSM.
>
> how would you get that decision if you didn't use the ma
FWIW, I agree with you that it should not be a case of copyright
infringement to obtain uncopyrightable facts from copyroghted sources.
Here's a blog post that even argues that it is OK to trace from Google's
satellite imagery: http://www.systemed.net/blog/legacy/100.html
But OSM does not operate
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Paulo Carvalho <
paulo.r.m.carva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear fellow mappers,
>
>Let me present myself to you. I'm a OSM mapper from the Brazil
> community and a question rose there which caused a split in the group
> regarding Google Street View to perform "
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Anybody can explain how it can be legal to claim copyright on old
> material, say 18th or 19th century works?
>
> When browsing the web (mostly library pages and catalogues) those
> institutions often claim full copyright and prohibit
Hi,
As long as that proprietary layer has not been created based on OSM data,
you are definitely good to go.
However, if the data was created based on OSM data (for example, users add
a marker on an OSM-based map and the marker was positioned relative to
objects depicted on the OSM map), then you
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> On 16/giu/2013, at 03:47, Erik Johansson wrote:
>
> > While I agree with Richard, it might be interesting to know that
> > Wikidata (a Wikimedia.de project) is licensed CC-0, and they copy data
> > wholesale from Wikipedia.
>
> that's
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Bekim Kajtazi wrote:
> Whatever case it is...the data is gone!!!
>
It's not gone. It's just not currently used.
You should be able to find the data in one of the following locations:
http://download.geofabrik.de/osm-before-redaction/europe/
http://planet.openstre
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Olov McKie 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?
> To clarify,
Hi Igor,
I'd like to address a couple of points.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Igor Brejc wrote:
> Not one company will dare to give out their proprietary source code to
> someone, even if they release it under a very strict license. The risks of
> someone inadvertently then pasting that code
Hi Igor,
IANAL, so the following are just my opinions.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Igor Brejc wrote:
> They also don't really answer the question "what is a Database". Let's take,
> for example, the statement "Rendering databases, for example those produced
> by Osm2pgsql, are clearly datab
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
>
> And this is where SA gets really hairy. It's entirely possible and actually
> quite common that part of a database that contains private data is public. E.
> g. public facing web sites that are powered from a Salesforce DB through a
> priva
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If it were any different, you could team up with a co-publisher, publish
> your ODbL Produced Works to him and he forwards them to the world without
> you ever having to release anything. It would be a loophole that demands
> quick fixing ;)
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Mike Dupont
wrote:
> I am just explaining the legal basis behind copyright and copyleft :
> Copyright says that I own all my work and you have no right to copy
> it, copyleft says you are allowed to copy it under certain conditions
> that are helpful to building a
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>>The European definition of a database is "a collection of independent
>>works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical
>>way and individually accessible by electronic or other means".
>>
>>Individual pixels comprising a typic
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:31 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
>> > I see that you and Frederik disagreed here. (FWIW I think he is right -
&g
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ed Avis 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 image too,
> and perhaps even a map or a photograph, but legally it would be hard to argue
> that it
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith
>> wrote:
>>> On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>>> I am not trying to apply patents to OS
Isn't PGS in the public domain since it's a work of the US federal
government and in addition was automatically generated from Landsat
imagery, which is also in the public domain?
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:56 PM, OJ W wrote:
> My account used for importing PGS coastlines just got an email asking
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> There seems to be a huge jump in the rate of CT acceptances (and
> declines, if you look close enough). About 3000 acceptances in a span
> of 36 hours:
> http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html
>
> Did somebo
There seems to be a huge jump in the rate of CT acceptances (and
declines, if you look close enough). About 3000 acceptances in a span
of 36 hours:
http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html
Did somebody do a mass email or something?
___
legal-talk
27;t
occur until the data is made available via the OSM API (and the OSM
Planet), then I believe there is no problem.
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
> wrote:
>> IANAL, but as long as the data i
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:06 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
>>FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's
>>CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his
>>own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks.
IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as
CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under
CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to
release the data *in the future* under anot
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:17:46PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith
>> wrote:
>> > On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> >> Clearly this
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not
>> your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open
>> communities.
>
> The
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why
>> should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the
>> desire to import oth
Some people have problems with section 2 of the proposed CT because of
granting of rights to OSMF.
Section 2 of CT 1.2.4[1]:
"[...] You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is
restricted by copyright, database right or an
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 8 April 2011 20:38, Nick Hocking wrote:
>> I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions
>> need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current
>> situation where some contributors (with va
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> to transfer rights to the OSMF.
But, you still own rights to the data you contributed (you can give it
however you want to anybody else). You're just giving OSMF the
permission to release your data as part of a database.
__
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Peter Miller wrote:
>
> On 2 February 2011 19:05, Rob Myers wrote:
>>
>> On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote:
>> Frederik has explained how it can be argued that BY-SA's private use
>> exception allows online mash-ups. Printed versions of the same works woul
Joao,
There's a difference between the share-alike in CC-BY-SA and ODbL.
Your preferred use case would be a fit for ODbL (which distinguishes
between derivative databases and produced works, such as a mashup with
separate data) but problematic for CC-BY-SA whose share-alike affects
more than just
Not so simple.
I'd much rather have the share-alike on the underlying data to a
CC-BY-SA map than the map image itself being share-alike. Sharing the
underlying data is not a requirement of CC-SA licenses. So if we go by
your definition, CC-BY-SA is NOT share-alike because the data is not
shared a
I agree with Frederik's very nice comparison of OSM with volunteer
organizations as well.
I guess OSM should be viewed as a collection of geodata to which
Frederik, John, Liz, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Richard, Richard,
Richard, et al have contributed to, instead of as a collection of
Frederik's
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> Am I the only one that sees a problem with the legal foundation of
> tracing from Bing imagery? Take a look at how NearMap.com make their
> imagery available for tracing. On their website along with the their
> license of how their imagery c
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:23 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Chris Fleming 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
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Prado, Renato (R.P.)
wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Are you planning to just overlay your data over the background map as
>> a separate and independent layer? If yes, then this would qualify as a
>> collective work under CC and you just need to attribute OSM in the
>> sugg
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Prado, Renato (R.P.) wrote:
> Hello you all.
>
> This is my first message here, please let me know if I am making any
> mistake regarding the use of this mailing list.
>
> After some reading of the license-related pages in the OSM wiki, I still
> cannot figure out w
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:42 PM, James Livingston wrote:
> On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> > If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run
> the servers) agrees with the license change, why should the onus of forking
> be on the
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar
> wrote:
>
> > ...why should the onus of forking be
> > on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed th
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:22 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> my question is, why dont you just make a fork for the new license and
> leave the rest of us to continue in peace? get the new system working
> and then we can talk about it.
> mike
>
This
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:22 AM, John Smith wrote:
> I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo
> information removed, another million objects that can be added in just
> a few weeks?
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004107.html
>
> I wonder
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jukka Rahkonen <
> jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi> wrote:
>
>> TimSC writes:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Apologies if this has been raised before, but I was wondering about GPS
>> > track data and licens
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Imports are bad enough in the effect they have on the surveying
> > community.
>
> You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian
> coastline.
>
> However
>
> If there is mapper time
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Alternatively, you could perhaps contribute to CommonMap (commonmap.info)
> who are not a fork of OSM but "acknowledge OSM as inspiration" and are not
> planning to use ODbL as far as I can see.
>
I seem to recall a project to try a PD "ve
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:20 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> 3. Each element is examined and only those with an unbroken history
>> chain from version 1 to the most recent ODbL'ed version are marked as "OK".
>>
>
> Does anyone know wh
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
>> On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would
>>> violate CC-BY-SA.
>>>
>>
>> Copyleft licences (or a copyleft lice
56 matches
Mail list logo
