Maning,
On 12/16/11 08:26, maning sambale wrote:
As what the subjects says, instead of removing and recreating tainted
data, I think it's best (in some cases) to revert to the last known
clean version.
This makes sense.
Sometimes you will not even have to revert to a last known clean
Hi,
On 12/16/11 12:12, Ed Avis wrote:
I guess ct=clean would be better since there may be data which is usable
under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL.
But are we interested in such data? I mean - if there *was* data not
usable under ODbL, then it would be a good idea to
Hi,
On 12/16/11 14:08, Steve Bennett wrote:
,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the
place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to fix
names?
Do we have any clear policy spelling out what constitutes clean?
No.
Presumably there are some
Hi,
On 12/08/2011 02:20 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
They produced a written report
I am intrigued by the joint authorship concept. If that was true
(relatively) universally, then we could perhaps use that to force even
those who haven't agreed to the license change to allow us (their
co-authors) to
Hi,
On 12/06/2011 11:16 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
Not that this is confidential, but this should have actually gone to the
LWG.
Happens to me all the time. Stupid auto-completion.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
Hi,
On 11/29/11 11:49, Ed Avis wrote:
I think you have to be careful about going too far with community norms.
Of course. They must not introduce new material, but they can be used to
clarify areas where things aren't crystal clear.
Community norms can serve to narrow the permission (as
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 the Produced Work?
It doesn't, and it doesn't have to. Only in so far as the
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 processes, where
one process has different license implications than the other.
For
, it does protect OSM's database all right, but drawing lines onto a
printed-out image is not making a derived database (and frankly I
wouldn't be all that interested in the geometry of those).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
under the Produced
Works provision.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by
decliners or non-responders.
That is correct as far as I know.
There is no contributor who has ever contributed even a 50% majority
of nodes on these routes. However, they
a solid foundation for the future, than build on
sand just to get it done quicker.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
to fill all
these holes, this one being CC-By-SA licensed.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
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 benefit for the whole community.
I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and
; we'd rather
patch things up *before* we switch. And this is not a recent change of
plans; it was always planned to wait until it is feasible to make the
switch. Personally, I expect it to happen in the first half of 2012 but
I have no LWG inside knowledge.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Gert, you seem to be under the impression that the license change
process has somehow failed just because we're still handing out the
planet under CC-BY-SA. But you are wrong; this has always been the case.
Maybe that too, but I meant to write this has always been
but I dont't think it makes sense to require
that the method be described in a file.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
Simon,
Andreas,
all,
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the
pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork.
The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of
motivations, the most
failed to mention explicitly)
that we are talking about nodes _that are used by a way_.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
but there will always be an element of
judgement.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
is clearly a derived work of
version 1.
You could also say: no, because the information added in version 2
(new coordinates) overwrites all information that was there from version
1, so there is nothing left to be protected.
Opinions?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede
Hi,
On 06/29/11 05:21, James Livingston wrote:
I don't think it would be treated differently, because I believe that an
in-memory data structure would still be a database (in the ODbL and
database right sense of database). I don't see how the storage
mechanism makes a difference.
Would you
determine what flexibility we have, if any.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
happened
in the black box, because you only have to share the last in a chain of
derived databases that leads to a produced work, right?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal
it.
Our community norm currently says it is a database if it was intended to
extract the data... some time in the past someone said it is a database
if you say it is one. Maybe that wasn't so bad after all.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
the data.
It didn't work out in the end but the intention was there... )
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
to
change them in this respect; changing the future-relicense-process in
the CT would in my opinion render the existing CT agreements invalid and
we'd have to start all over again!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
Hi,
On 06/22/11 15:18, ThomasB wrote:
My point is that a user of software, and this is not limited to Garmin map
software, may not know what a software does in the background i.e. if it is
creating a (temporary) Derivative Database, a Collective Database or
whatever.
Yes. The software might
of
OSM just because you have a historic tile on your server.
See also the work-in-progress page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
contributes
them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL.
Duh. Does that mean I don't get to delete the Australian coastline in
the end?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal
Hi,
On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:
Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?
Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles.
Tiles can be put
Hi,
On 06/16/11 10:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to
check existing data and delete it if so.
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the
burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean,
Hi,
On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote:
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden
of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even
*begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to
tell us what license
though this may sound conflicting, an effort
should be made to involve TimSC in AoA discussions, or he should be
encouraged to stand for election to the board, because see first two
paragraphs.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
was unwilling to submit to a 2/3 majority, but
requested the option to veto any future license change for his data.
If that is the case he's talking about then this is really far beyond
what the sysadmins want or don't want...
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09
(e.g. something that is covered by a
patent may not fall under CC-BY-SA's share-alike). Who's to say what counts?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
Hi,
On 06/07/11 10:35, Ed Avis wrote:
The process is pretty simple really:
- decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote
- get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence
- block anyone who says no from contributing
and presto! you have your 2/3 majority
unnecessary, I'd
certainly not waste my time on this list.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal
Hi,
On 06/06/11 12:56, Kirill Bestoujev wrote:
The resulting map (a single file) contains data from both
sources. Can this resulting map (which is a database by its inside
structure) treated as a collective database?
I believe so. In my opinion, a derived database would result if you were
to
half of it was
based on false assumptions.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
not be of any use currently.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
others for abuse
on your behalf. But again - is that a problem? Would you rather have the
sentence about suing for copyright violation removed from the CT, would
that be better?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
and
replace it with yours. The map will not be worse for it, and the other
mapper can hardly complain.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
, there's
no reason to prefer the former.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
Mike Dupont wrote:
Funny, based on my last question, the OSM will not be able to use
cc-by-sa data in the future.
Some say that we aren't able to use CC-BY-SA data now because we cannot
provide proper attribution.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49
Russ,
On 05/06/11 07:25, Russ Nelson wrote:
Would you really say that personally, as far as your contributions are
concerned, you consider your I agree click to be legally void because
it happened under duress?
No, I'm saying that *everyone's* agreement is invalid because it was
Russ,
(I'm trying to move this over to legal-talk because you are
expressing an interesting legal viewpoint):
On 05/05/11 06:27, Russ Nelson wrote:
I'm wondering on what data you come to that conclusion? Because people
have clicked ok on the license change and CTs? And yet there is no
Eugene,
On 04/17/2011 06:39 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
Some people have problems with section 2 of the proposed CT because of
granting of rights to OSMF.
[...]
Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why
should it be a big problem for OSM contributors
True.
Hi,
On 04/17/2011 10:51 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at
the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of
copyright is a no go for some.
Firstly, in the CT case we're not talking transfer of copyright.
Secondly, I
being created then it is
certainly a derived work. (It isn't a derived work until step 3.3
because OSM data only comes into play in 3.4.)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
Hi,
(Thread moved over from talk)
On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:
In addition, it is imho not clear that not some of the many imports listed
as Attribution licensed wouldn't fall into this category, too (rather than
in category 3 as CC-BY).
To be clear, my category 3 was meant for
Hi,
On 04/15/2011 09:16 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
In addition, it is imho not clear that not some of the many
imports listed as Attribution licensed wouldn't fall into this
category, too (rather than in category 3 as CC-BY).
I haven't seen this list so cannot comment.
Sorry for that. I had
Hi,
On 04/14/2011 09:54 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
If I'm reading what Francis has written correctly, this would seem to
be a very real problem with CT 2.2.4, which would prevent us using
almost any source which wasn't PD or for which the contributor didn't
own the copyright. In
.
(Followup-to legal-talk.)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
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 contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could
just keep on
Hi,
On 04/08/2011 05:05 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor
Terms would still make a lot of sense.
Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.
I was trying to say that even if we
Hi,
On 03/24/11 09:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
...and many prospective contributors are being shunned away because a
new contributor doesn't have the same privileges as existing
contributors. i.e. existing contributors can use non-CT compatible
data, but new users cannot.
That's a funny
* license would very likely require a
*multiple* of OSMF's whole current budget. Do you want to stand before
mappers and tell them for every pound we spend for servers to make
mapping a nicer experience, we spend five pounds to seek out and punish
license violators?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik
that name and shame should be the utmost we do with
violators, and legal steps should neither be threatened nor initiated
except in very grave circumstances.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
Hi,
On 02/16/11 18:56, David Groom wrote:
On the wiki under phase 4 of the licencing plan [1] it says Final
cut-off. Community Question: What do we do with the people who have
declined or not responded?
Who is the community in the above context,
Anyone who wants to say something. Note that
Hi,
Irakli wrote:
Hi I’m new user and I have some questions
Maybe
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/2676/can-i-use-osm-in-software-that-is-password-protected
answers some of them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
Hi,
On 02/02/11 19:39, Peter Miller wrote:
So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able
to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not
available on an open license even if the context of the two images is
completely different?
Yes, I am not
Hi,
On 02/02/11 19:47, Jonathan Harley wrote:
I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the
map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data
is open and OSM is attributed; not
Peter,
On 02/02/11 21:02, Peter Miller wrote:
I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very
unhelpful view for the project to take.
The whole attribution-and-share-alike thing is a very unhelpful
situation for the project but it doesn't go away simply because it is
calls tomorrow
and tell some people that contrary to what I said earlier, they can go
ahead with their projects ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
best for a
database of facts is best for OSM.
I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing
themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae
of facts.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
Hi,
On 01/05/11 09:01, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Is there a tool available to remove all my contributed data from osm,
safeguard it, and allows me to resubmit once I can agree
with the CT and new license ?
No. You would probably negatively affect a lot of other
Hi,
On 01/05/2011 01:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why
are we not using it now?
I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we
still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their
data
Hi,
On 01/05/2011 02:14 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will
not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to
the CT.
No edit with my account leads to that I demand my previous data
, they should do so.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 01/04/11 16:02, Anthony wrote:
But what could we do?
Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.
No, that is not acceptable to me. Someone who participates in OSM must
have the willingness to accept what the majority wants, or else they
should not
Hi,
On 01/04/11 15:17, John Smith wrote:
Or better yet, change active contributor to active participant and
include things like genuine mailing list posts or wiki edits or ...
rather than restricting interested parties to only those who can
edit...
I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit
Steve,
On 12/23/10 01:57, Steve Bennett wrote:
That's another area wide open to discussion; my interpretation of I
consider my contributions PD has always been: I don't claim any rights in
what I contribute. - not: I vouch for nobody holding any rights in what I
contribute. (The latter position
, and after that is done,
it is then available under CC-BY-SA to all?
I guess so - more precisely, available under whatever license OSM uses
at that time.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
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
with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing
imagery cannot be distributed under this
Phillip,
On 12/21/10 16:43, Barnett, Phillip wrote:
So people who have not (yet) accepted the CTs can't use Bing? Is that really
the case?
I think Rob was slightly wrong when he said:
We do not have permission from Bing to licence the data differently
anywhere else. And contributions to
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops
publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under
CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would
FOR YOU, then you're free to do other things.
However, as others have pointed out, what we have from Bing now is
already *much* more that we ever had from Yahoo in terms of written
permission - and I cannot remember you being equally over-cautious about
Yahoo. Why?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
Dear LWG,
this is just for your information - not a request or action item.
There's a cartography student here in Karlsruhe who is doing his
bachelor thesis at Geofabrik. From a number of possible topics I offered
him, he chose this:
Development and implementation of an alogrithm to
Hi,
Dear LWG,
Oops, mis-sent this - was supposed to go to LWG only and not to list.
Anyway, no secrets in there - if anyone has interesting comments, feel
free to share them and I'll forward them to Jakob.
Bye
Frederik
___
legal-talk mailing
Hi,
On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would reach
66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors.
The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT will be 100%:
An 'active contributor' is
Francis,
On 12/14/10 10:38, Francis Davey wrote:
Anyway, this is a governance issue rather than a legal one. As drafted
the CT's will require 2/3 of all active contributors, not merely those
who vote.
As written in another message, I believe that in this case an active
contributor is one who
Hi,
On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote:
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is
deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising
you can think of. The balance is wrong,
Commons deem suitable.
So either your simple definition of share-alike is correct and
everyone in real life is doing it wrong. Or maybe it is too simple.
Which was precisely the point I was trying to make.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008
for another time, what happens if you
import data from a share-alike source today but in 5 years the data
source goes PD. Will the data you have imported now have to be deleted
and re-imported to take advantage of the greater flexibility, or can it
just be switched?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
on the contributor's side. Where I see the
problems with this approach is on the OSMF side.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
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 think it is wrong that this licence can be
changed in the future without the
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 change the
license under which everyone elses content is published.
Yes. But
Simon,
Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
My statement above arose from a discussion in which pec...@gmail.com wrote:
I know
Andrew, Manuel -
On 12/06/2010 10:28 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
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
The situation is sufficient for me to use Bing imagery for tracing.
Hi,
On 11/26/10 13:13, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I am sure that each part of the thought experiment is allowed under the
current CT rules. Or do you see something that violates the CT?
Your thought experiment was built on OSMF *changing* the CT.
Now changing the CT doesn't violate the
Hi,
On 11/26/10 15:24, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
My thought experiment was based on being locked out of the server, being
unable to contribute, and thereby loosing the right to vote.
I agree that the CT currently seem to have no provision to make sure
that someone who *wants* to be an
Hi,
On 11/26/10 16:24, Mike Dupont wrote:
Do you *really* think it is right to say: What's mine is mine, and if those
100 people in 10 years make any step that I don't like then I will withdraw
my work from under them?
please stop at this point.
We are not talking about withdrawing anything
Anthony,
you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike
to which I replied:
On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote:
If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes
or blank check rules in there that involve trusting some unknown set
of people that can
Hi,
On 11/24/2010 10:57 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove
the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't
agreed to the new license.
I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam,
Are you sure this has
with emails.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
OSM mentioned in that
context.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
any changes to it.
The boundary between just a difficult file format and encryption is
probably rather grey. The'd surely be on the safe side if they
distributed the contents of that file on a parallel channel in an easily
readable form.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede
Anthony,
On 11/19/10 14:38, Anthony wrote:
If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
extract of data.
You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works
that way and see if OSMF sue
101 - 200 of 449 matches
Mail list logo
