I'm pretty sure that Martijn means "does NOT allow", rather than "now". :-)
So, whatever you are planning, Jennifer, hitting the editing API is
probably going to get you some unwanted attention. There are other
ways to access the OpenStreetMap data, and you'll want to make sure
that you are usin
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Robin Paulson wrote:
> hi folks,
> auckland, new zealand has a council-controlled website which is used for
> route planning on public transport.
[ ... ]
> we are confident the data is from osm. assuming it is, what are the best
> steps to take?
[ ... ]
> What
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>
>>> Updated:
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guideline&diff=1102233&oldid=1076215
>>>
> Hey Martin - the change you link to
Didn't Steve C publish an automated tool to create road geometry from
aerial imagery when he was at Microsoft?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Michael Collinson wrote:
> Thanks to all have responded specifically or generally on our community
> guidelines draft. I have been able to make a number of small changes which
> tighten and clarify without changing intent.
>
> I have made one large edit by replacin
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Michael Collinson wrote:
[ ... ]
> [And if anyone in the UK wants to help them by creating tiles from scratch
> under a CC-BY license, let me know and I'll pass on. It does seem to be in
> a good cause. But the core question is still a good one to answer.]
Not cur
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Michael Collinson wrote:
> Open data is a different animal to software source code and highly-creative
> works and I suspect it will [be] a few more years yet until we understand it
> all
> fully.
Sure. Of course, we are part of why it is a big deal now, and we
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
> I just posted a writeup on my diary on how we're attributing OpenStreetMap
> at Mapbox.
[ ... ]
[ and from the blog ]
> (c) Mapbox (c) OpenStreetMap links to https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps with
> a full listing of all sources.
[ ... ]
> Loo
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
[ ... ]
> But it is a reality that [ fear of a Share Alike obligation(?)]* slows,
> or in some cases stops, adoption of/contribution to OSM.
Slows contribution to OpenStreetMap? That sounds incorrect to me.
ODbL and particularly Share Alike _e
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Mike Dupont
wrote:
> the wikipedia has a nice otrs system, I supposed you could use it
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS
>
> so let them sign something that allows the data to be used by wikipedia and
> that should cover osm as well.
Well no, Mike, I
What do you suggest, Martin?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
>>
[ ... ]
>> Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed
>> ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure.
>
>
&
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official
> confirmation of the exact license adopted.
I disagree.
Any license drafted or adopted by a Canadian government, other than a
no-restrictions, equivalent-to-Public-D
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Kate Chapman wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This has come up before. HOT is part of a pilot for the initiative
> "Imagery to the Crowd" (1). Representatives of HOT and the US
> Government met multiple times in all day meetings to discuss what the
> NextView license means as
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Rob wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Would like to ask / discuss with you the new license for OSM if you do not
> mind.
>
> I have a website that I would like to integrate/include OSM map tiles into.
>
> What I would like to clarify is if I would be required to share the data
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Mike Dupont
wrote:
> I think it is a great error to introduce the CTs and it is a great
> error to put faith in the OSMF board who show no responsibility,
> better to put faith in the creative commons board who at least listen
> to people and care about porting l
Looks like Apple is now crediting OpenStreetMap in version 1.0.1 of iPhoto,
as reported by OSMer Beelsebob, on #osm IRC :-)
http://cl.ly/421B0u2r0u0J3o0I3e3s
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin
2012/4/2 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
> Hi,
>
> I admit that I'm pretty confused right now... Are you saying that you've
> changed your mind and are willing to agree to ODbL+CT, except for the
> changesets containing imports of incompatible data? That would be really
> great!
>
> If this is that cas
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> So lets start by saying that I don't like ODbL and I hate CT.
>
> There are three classes of data I uploaded to osm:
>
> a) Hand created data, most important paths in the woods. CT+ODbL, is
> okay for those.
>
> b) ODbL compatible - mas
2012/3/31 Darko Sokolić :
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I contributed to OpenStreetMap under CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. It was great
> pleasure, and I enjoyed it very much.
> I did not accept new Contributor Terms and new license.
> Also, I did not authorise anyone, in any way, to relicense or sublicense m
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Well essentially CC-by only imposes attribution so it is doable.
>
> But in any case: is the import listed in the import catalogue?
>
> If not, I would respectfully ask the DWG to summarily delete the data (the
> "enforce" bit of my previous
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Michael Collinson wrote:
> I am deeply shocked this morning to learn of the murder of [our] friend Ulf.
The OSMF site has a page where we can add our memories of Ulf.
http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/01/18/ulf-m%C3%B6ller-1973-2012/
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Yes. I have no strong feelings either way; your argument is correct. However
> the question must be asked in how far you can claim copyright for facts that
> others have to extract from your prose. In my personal opinion, if someone
> wrote
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 10:11 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>>> Of particular interest are:
>>> - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
>
> While you are at it, I would love to hear about a specific subset of the
> cases encom
odbl compliance of any object. The LWG
would like to adopt this as policy and would be grateful for community
feedback."
We look forward to your thoughtful, insightful feedback.
Best regards and Happy Mapping,
Richard Weait on behalf of LWG
___
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Jo wrote:
[ ... ]
> I do have a suggestion to help identify which tags/properties are the
> ones contributed by somebody who declined or who can't be reached. Now
> I have to go an dig in the history to check who added names and other
> properties, when recreating
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
> As I've had no response from this list,
Hi Josh,
I believe that standardized licenses for Open Data are a Very Good
Thing. Perhaps, you can show them the benefit of selecting a license
from Open Data Commons?
Best regards,
Richard
__
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August
> (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).
>
>> Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their
>> contributions are public domain.
>>
>> There
[Redirected from talk-au to legal-talk due to topic of discussion]
Andrew Laughton wrote:
> Irony is when you buy a shiny new GPS loaded with OSM data, only
> to find out that you need to pay a license fee to be able to update
> the map.
> Gotta love that new license.
[Response from Richard Fairh
2011/7/11 Holger Schöner :
> Hello,
>
> [I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web
> search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these
> questions]
>
> I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who
> wants to allow "OpenS
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:39 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 18 June 2011 19:22, Francis Davey wrote:
>> Tiles are clearly *maps* and so protected as artistic works under
>> article 2(1) of the Berne Convention and therefore (one hopes) in
>> every country which is a signatory to Berne which includes
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM, David Groom wrote:
> Word in quotes below relate to the meanings given them by ODbL
>
> Assume I use jxapi to download an extract of the main OSM database . Is the
> downloaded extract a "Derivative Database", or since the download was
> provided by OSM does the d
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb:
>>
>> The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to
>> contribute.
>
> It it defined anywhere what "contribute" means?
>From the contributor terms v1.2.4
> An "active contributor
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last wrote:
>
> Hi all
> As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap
> regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM.
Dear Ben,
Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's
contributions to the
Also the current acceptance numbers are ~166,000 accepting, vs. 406 declined.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Michael Collinson wrote:
> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday
> 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that
> anyone who has explictly declined the new contributor terms will no longer
> be a
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
>> My thought: Incompatible sources are incompatible. "Good intentions"
>> do not trump incompatible sources.
>
> Wasn't thinking that because it was doing something for good, that
> automatically made it clean data :)
>
> Really curious how "su
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
> Legal-talk, any opinions or insights on this question?
>
> == Mikel Maron ==
> +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
> From: Mikel Maron
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 5:18:11 PM
>
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Ciprian Talaba wrote:
> Hi,
> I would be interested to know if this is the place where we can discuss
> possible OSM copyright violations or should I direct my concerns directly to
> the Data Working Group? The problems I noticed are related to some well
> known di
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM, john wilbanks
wrote:
> Yup, I said this:
>
> "I'm going to be a little provocative here and say that your data is
> already unprotected [under CC-BY-SA], and you cannot slap a license on
> it and protect it. ... That means I'm free to ignore any kind of
> share-ali
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
> Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move?
Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and
contributor terms.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openst
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:56 AM, OJ W wrote:
> My account used for importing PGS coastlines just got an email asking
> that it agree to new contributor terms - has anyone already declared
> this is OK during the import-checking phase of license change?
>
> Asking on mailing list, since there should
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Michael Collinson writes:
>
>>- In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of
>>at least several months of publicity and discussion before the final
>>formal vote announcement.
> At the moment there is something of a credibilit
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Julio Costa Zambelli
wrote:
> I was checking some papers at work today and accidentally found this license
> violation (both Attribution and Share-Alike) by the RAND Corporation:
> http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1100.pdf (Page
> 20
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:52 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Sorry that I come quite late with this, it might be too late, and it
> was bothering me occasionally already for some months: if we really
> decided in the future to change the license, isn't 3 weeks a little
> short for such an importa
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:45 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Excuse me if this question has already been raised. I am currently
> involved in a project that has chosen OSM as cartographic base for a
> portal for tourists. There will be an ontology to allow for semantic
> research and the idea is
There have been previous discussions regarding "per changeset relicensing".
I'd like to know if developing the tools to allow per changeset
relicensing is worthwhile. There will be some effort involved in the
coding, so it would be good to know in advance if this option will be
used by many or fe
>From the ODC discussion list:
Today the municipality of Orebro in Sweden has released its open
geodata under Open Data Commons Licenses. The first Swedish
municipality to take this step.
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/news/orebro_releases_geodata_under_odbl
___
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Andrew wrote:
> I hope there is no turf war brewing between Creative Commons and Open Data
> Commons.
I wouldn't know. On the other hand, Mike Linksvayer, from Creative
Commons, joined the License Working Group conference call on 18 Jan
2011. The discussion was
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Richard Masoner wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm a rank newbie at OSM, but getting into it because of my interest in
> mapping bike facilities.
> The US Rails to Trails Conservancy has an outstanding database of
> bicycling trails. This "Traillink" database is the basis of Go
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/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
>
> Richard
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
How charming that you use selective quoting to fabricate a lie of
omission. Viewing the original shows no lie. And that your
fabrication failed to gain traction the first time you trotted it out.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> I recognise some of the names on that list. ;-)
>
> - Rob.
Sure. And the typo as well. Everybody and their dog get the name wrong.
Right -> OpenStreetMap
Wrong -> Open Street Maps
Sigh.
___
legal-t
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your Contents'
> would effectively be empty. The upload would consist entirely of 'Other
> People's
> Contents'.
Presuming you followed the upload / bulk edit / automated edits code
of
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain?
Indeed. But I think that you are right that this is a side note. Why
not start that discussion on the wiki, or in a separate thread here?
I've changed the subject to reflect th
There have been several revisions to a new draft of the Contributor
Terms from the LWG over the last few meetings.
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb
Various draft versions have been around for a while. I think we've
improved the CT with each revision. LWG have had some wonderf
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Robin Paulson wrote:
> the auckland city council has this as its copyright notice. how
> compatible would this be with cc-by-sa, or odbl?
>
> http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/pages/Copyrightstatement.aspx
>
> if it isn't, which items are incompatible?
Wow. D
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> I just answered a user's question on how to accept the new contributor
> terms. I'll quote his statement here:
>
>
> ''How do we accept the new licence??'' JOSM sent me here but I cannot
> find a way to accept the licence.
Users may accept th
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Groom wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Richard Weait"
>>
>> David, what would you suggest? Can you see a situation where
>> discarding the data is not required in the case of non-response?
>
> My first
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:05 PM, David Groom wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "M?rtin Koppenhoefer"
>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:44 PM
> Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license
>
>
>>
>> reading the legal FAQ for the li
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> We must really endeavour to better enable people to draw in non-OSM data at
> the rendering stage so that they don't feel tempted to drop their rubbish
> into OSM just so that they get a nice map rendered.
Bravo.
___
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:58 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 20 September 2010 23:26, John Smith wrote:
>> On 21 September 2010 06:38, Ulf Möller wrote:
>>> On the other hand, if someone has two accounts, we probably can rely on the
>>> honor system.
>>
>> Currently it's being suggested that
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
>
>> The one issue which should be clarified with the data provider is
>> this. They provide a copyright statement. OSM would like to place
>> that on the wiki to meet their requirements. Placing it on the data
>> is a bit arcane as only motiv
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
>
> Hello,
> The Manitoba Lands Initiative has a wealth of data available on their
> website, and I wanted to pass the license by everyone here. From what I
> understand of it, using their data in OSM is perfectly fine.
Wow. Compared to other m
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
>> Also, as more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map Maker
>> and OSM editors are using similar sources.
>
> Yes, I understand this and the context you are e
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote:
> Well, by nature of the edit I made to that way/coastline, I am 99.9% certain
> it's OSM data being rendered over at the Google MapMaker site. I looked on
> their license page and did not find mention of OSM, but perhaps I missed it.
> If
Dear Eric,
Your replies from Grant (on the server team) and Emilie (OSMF Board
member) are from people who would normally deal with these issues.
;-)
As far as I know Map Maker does not use OSM data, but no consumer of
OSM data is obliged to tell OSM that they are using OSM data. They
are only o
Well we try to answer questions as quickly as possible. Some answers
depend on further meetings, others depend on replies from busy
professionals. Some answers get lost in the mundane reality of day to
day life.
Here are a couple of answers for questions that were asked a few weeks
back. Not yo
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides
> not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing
> started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license
> changed.
No, JohnSmith, still yo
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:15 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want
> is quite fallacious.
Really? What will future generations want, 80n? I predict that
future generations will want "Flying cars" sure, but we were promised
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:01 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait wrote:
>> That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are "are trying to
>> speak for both people now and people in the future" in the very same
>> breath is bold
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose
>> today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time.
>
> The sheer arrogance of all this is as
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
> wrote:
>> 1) Those who do not want to, or can not. agree to the CT's and make an
>> decision not to accept the CT's.
>> 2) Those previous mappers who are no longer active and so won't
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:59 AM, David Groom wrote:
> In the implementation plan under phase 4 it asks "Final cut-off. Community
> Question... What do we do with the people who have Declined or not
> responded?" [1]
>
> In order to speed up the final phases of the implementation plan, and in
> par
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Gregory Arenius wrote:
> I've been considering bringing in some of the data available at
> http://www.datasf.org . Most of it is behind this clickthrough agreement:
> http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp . I think it would be
> okay but I thought I
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Simon Biber wrote:
> On Sun, 22 August, 2010 11:55:27 PM, Peteris Krisjanis
> wrote:
>
>> As I'm interested in keeping my data within OSM and find a common ground with
>>rest of you, I'm delighted to see that requests to specify 'free and open
>>license' in CT se
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, SomeoneElse
wrote:
> On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote:
>>
>> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly
>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY
>> 0.1
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/d
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Brian Quinion
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mike Collinson wrote:
>> If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new
>> Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike
>> license written especially for d
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 the implementation plan. Phase 2 scheduled as 5 or 10 weeks.
Phase 3 as 8 weeks. Plus
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there is anything under development it would be good if we could see it.
> It is unlikely to be a trivial piece of code and I'd be very surprised if it
> can be developed by September 1st if it hasn't already been started.
You've r
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is
>>> sufficient
>>> to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things
>>> slip
>>> through, then fix them in case of complain
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
> Hello
>
> I searched without success in the Wiki
> who official decided, when and *WHY* they decided, that data of
> contributors, who not (can) accept the ODbl, has to be removed.
>
> In
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_D
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Matija Nalis wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:05:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>> TimSC wrote:
>>> In that case, is it legally sound if I download my own contribution
>>> due, to database rights?
>>
>> Difficult to say - I can see an argument either w
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
>> So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
>> vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as
>> 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of si
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski :
>> If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected
>> by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If
>> there's nothing written on it then you basically have to assum
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's an interesting one.
>
> Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet
> has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers,
> and the project is again humming along nicely (re
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:01 AM, James Livingston
wrote:
> * Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. CC-BY-SA,
> CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's permission
This is a tremendous improvement in my opinion. I'd like to see every
data publish
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:
[ ... ]
> And I think this thread alone has already shown (together with previous
> discussions) that there is a need for this discussion. E.g. Frederik said
> (paraphrased and exaggerated) it is about the data, not the contributors,
> then Rich
w many people" then that was a mistake,
> because the number of people is of little interest, it is the amount of
> their contributions that matters.
I feel that the number of contributors is very important.
> Secondly, I think Richard Weait found good words for this at SOTM: Nobody in
&
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:36 AM, wrote:
> I'm trying to determine what is required of my company with regard to
> the on-air broadcast of OSM data. I sell a product used in TV news. Part
> of my product consists of maps. Sometimes my maps use OSM data. Not
> always, in fact most clients are not u
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:52 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an interesting question about copyright in kosovo.
>
> We have a company who has purchased orthophotos of kosovo, which are
> very strictly regulated.
> here is the law on this :
> http://www.kca-ks.org/download
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Mike Collinson writes:
>
>>- When enough contributors have agreed, we cut over to licensing the current
>>database under ODbL, (And a static snapshot of the database is also made
>>forever
>>under CC-BY-SA). If for some reason this event never h
I'll draft a letter to Nike regarding this matter. I won't send it,
as it should come from an OSMF director or their assignee. I'll have
it for you in an hour or so.
It would be helpful if you, the hive mind, could find
names, addresses and email addresses for
Nike CEO (Oregon head office)
Nik
Recent OSM-derived sites have included beautiful vanity logos on the
map. As an example, the recent isochronous map of Paris:
http://www.isokron.com/default/
Has a beautiful, bright "isokron" logo and link to their site. But I
wonder if this meets with the Prominence clause of our ccbysa license
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a recent discussion on talk-de has unearthed an interesting question
> with regards to iPhone/Appstore and other locked platforms.
[... ]
> Now, CC-BY-SA requires that whoever buys this application should have
> the full right to
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, F. Heinen wrote:
> Hey Richard,
>
> Thanks a lot for the response. I read (quickly) most of the documentation
> already. Seems quite a lot of work
> and study has been put into this. Good work OSMF!
>
> But even when it seems this is all needed and much better AFAI
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:09 PM, F. Heinen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Let me first introduce myself, I am Frank aka Frenzel. I am a community
> member of OSM.nl since Aug. 2009, so relatively new but also quite active.
> I hope I mail this to the right mailing list.
Hi Frank,
I'm Richard, an OSM parti
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Stefano Salvador
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to send this to the foundation but I got no response, so I'm trying
> here.
>
> During an edit session I noticed a number of errors near my living
> area [1]. Comparing the area with GMaps [2] reveals too many
> similiraties
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, 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, ready for forking. Of
course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork
without re-writing i
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Andy Robinson wrote:
> But maybe if you chat to them they might consider releasing to OSM under a
> modified license to get around this?
Of course. In progress. ;-)
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
