On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:41 Kathleen Lu via legal-talk, <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
> There are two reasons.
>
I would argue that the dataset here does include some OSM data, as it includes
(albeit limited) informa
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 21:18, tomoya muramoto wrote:
> I ask a simple question. May I copy the information of the TESCO Boston
> Superstore to OSM?
> https://www.tesco.com/store-locator/uk/?bid=2108
>
> This website contains information such as
> - addr=*
> - phone=*
> - opening_hours=*
> - branch
On 9 September 2016 at 18:19, Luis Villa wrote:
> Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the
> "third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license"
> language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is implicit in
> all licenses - if t
On 18 August 2016 at 21:12, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> use your favourite search engine with something like
> "site:lists.openstreetmap.org legal-talk mykeyword".
Or better still "site:lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/
mykeyword", which works on at least Google.
Robert.
--
Robert Whitt
On 9 June 2016 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote:
>>
>> The LWG has just forwarded the text of
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collective_Database_Guideline to
>> the OSMF board for approval and publishing as definite guidance from
>> the OSMF.
On 18 January 2016 at 10:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review
> and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the
> compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/
On 21 December 2015 at 16:48, Tom Lee wrote:
> The key thing here is that OSM *itself* would clearly be in compliance with
> LPI's terms. I think that's the bar that has to be cleared.
I have to disagree here. OSM is not just about OSM's own use of the
data, it is also about providing data to oth
On 11 December 2015 at 21:04, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Talking with their legal people it was, or at least as far as I
> understood them, their view that the the ODbL style of attribution
> (where downstream don't need to provide attribution for any
> incorporated or derived datasets) is fine within
On 1 December 2014 at 21:51, Simon Poole wrote:
> Am 01.12.2014 15:08, schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists):
>
>> This also raises the question of whether there are any other
>> OGL-licensed datasets out there that have been used in OSM, but which
>> contain und
As you may know, the UK's Land Registry makes available historical
"Price Paid" data for residential property sales, licensed under the
Open Government Licence (OGL). Along with the prices paid, this data
also includes full addresses and postcodes for the properties.
OGL-licensed data is regarded
levant OSM
copyright/attribution pages. It presumably should be.
Thanks,
Robert.
On 29 October 2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:
> The ODbL that we now use for OSM data technically only applies to the
> database, and not to individual contents contained within it. For
> that, the
The ODbL that we now use for OSM data technically only applies to the
database, and not to individual contents contained within it. For
that, the ODbL says you need a separate licence [1]. I was under the
impression that for OSM's data this licence was the ODC's Database
Contents Licence (DbCL) [2]
On 8 August 2014 09:48, Simon Poole wrote:
> CC-BY is not per se compatible. We need (and I believe this is still the
> case with 4.0) explicit acknowledgement that the way that we provide
> attribution is OK and that we do not provide downstream attribution for
> individual sources.
Getting a bi
On 11 July 2014 03:52, Alex Barth wrote:
> I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding.
>
> Please review:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline
The whole point of the share-alike aspect of our licence is to stop
people taking O
On 21 May 2014 15:08, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I like the message but I am not sure if it really works, license-wise.
>
> Suppose I have my own data set with restaurant POIs, A.
>
> Now I take an OSM database with restaurant POIs, B.
>
> Now I compute the difference, B-A - "all restaurants that are
On 7 March 2014 22:40, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> I have been provided (i) original vector data and (ii) a printed map leaflet
> both of which include attribute data about roads - for example, whether the
> road is lit.
>
> The owner of the attribute data (whether the road is lit) has explicitly
> sta
On 21 January 2014 18:18, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, folks! I'm a new OSM contributor in Vancouver, BC, Canada. I'm doing
> some manual, on-the-ground, local knowledge mapping, but I'm also
> looking for importable sources of important data types we're currently
> missing locally.
>
> There is a
On 17 September 2013 08:38, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
> However, basic postcode centre locations are part of the OS OpenData releases.
Unfortunately, CodePoint Open is the one dataset in the OS OpenData
collection that hasn't been cleared for use in OSM. See
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/piperm
On 13 June 2013 14:58, Olov McKie wrote:
> Manual geocoding
> A person using an OSM map to find the latitude and longitude coordinates
> associated with a point or an area, normally by clicking, drawing or
> similarly marking where that point or area is on a map. As an example, the
> process of
On 7 June 2013 01:56, Alex Barth wrote:
> With two State of the Map conferences coming up now and plenty of
> opportunities for face time, I'd like to restart our conversation around
> clarifying the ODbL's implications for geocoding and get to a result. Over
> here at MapBox we're hoping to use O
On 6 June 2013 08:11, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council
> footpath open data is?
It will depend what data you are referring to. But the general rule
will apply: you can only use data/information that is subject to
someone else's co
My understanding of the ODbL is that it covers an overall database,
but not individual contents within it. So in order to use an ODbL
database you also need a license (or other permission) to use the
contents. Conversely, when offering a database to others under the
ODbL, if you actually want them
On 18 January 2013 14:37, Michael Collinson wrote:
> The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
> Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.
>
> I would like to draw your attention to the following:
>
> We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to
On 5 November 2012 17:56, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Chris Hill wrote:
>> So the answer, as always with this sort of question, is no we cannot
>> use that data without written permission of the copyright holder to
>> use this data in OSM for any purpose. I don't think that is likely to
>> be forth
On 22 October 2012 10:44, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence.
> Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this
> implies a downstream attribution requirement too ("reasonably calculated to
> make any Person... ex
I have a question concerning the ability of someone creating produced
works from an ODbL-licensed database to license that produced work for
use by others. Strictly speaking it's a question about the ODbL,
rather that OSM, but since it will have a significant effect on OSM
users, I thought I would
On 11 June 2012 13:28, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to use
> this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense of
> the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this?
I'd say that it depends entirely o
On 11 June 2012 18:12, Chris Hill wrote:
> That is not true. LWG did not get 'specific agreement' from OS. We are
> simply using OS OpenData in compliance with the OS OpenData licence and OS
> confirmed:
>
> "The Ordnance Survey has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS
> OpenData being
://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright so that it also directs users
to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors ?
Thanks,
Robert.
On 9 May 2012 09:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
wrote:
> I've just been given permission to use some UK Local Government data
> relating to Public Footpaths and other Ri
I've just been given permission to use some UK Local Government data
relating to Public Footpaths and other Rights of Way in OpenStreetMap,
under the terms of the Open Government License (OGL) [1]. In return
the County Council is asking for a standard attribution based on the
example given in the l
On 2 February 2012 13:43, Woll Newall wrote:
> What is the consensus on the legal status of an object that has been created
> by a non-agreer, but all of the nodes and all of the tags have been
> deleted/changed by agreers?
>
> i.e.:
> 1) Non-agreer creates a way with tags 'name=A' and 'highway=te
On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
> * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
> these tags are not present any more in the current version
Are you sure that this is a good idea?
I can think of lo
2011/10/10 Carlos Dávila :
> I would like to know if it would be possible with the new license to
> distribute maps which combine OSM data and other data licensed under a more
> restrictive license (basically non commercial use permitted). AFAIK it is
> not possible with the current CC license, is
On 9 August 2011 03:17, maning sambale wrote:
> I have a mapping project for an organization involved in conservation
> and natural resources management. We are planning to create an
> internal/local webmapping application to help the organization in
> monitoring several projects in an area. We
On 19 June 2011 11:21, John Smith wrote:
> On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
> wrote:
>> Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound
>> recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics,
>> I'm guessing the answer is
On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith wrote:
> On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith wrote:
>> Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into
>> ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa.
>>
>
> Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future
> licenses, so that wouldn't be
On 18 June 2011 10:22, Francis Davey wrote:
> OK. So what I mean by "some of the questions don't make sense" is
> exactly this. I'm afraid you and lots of others who ask questions use
> a lot of short-hand (lawyers sometimes do this too). The problem is
> then I don't know what assumptions are bui
On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Robert Whittaker wrote:
>> A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
>> remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any "Free
>> and Open" license without the need for further checks.
>
> No, that hasn't been the case since
On 16 June 2011 07:58, Francis Davey wrote:
> The right question - when considering deletions - is, can the OSMF use
> this dataset as part of the OSM. That is a question of compatibility
> between the original licence (in this case the OS Opendata licence)
> and the way in which OSMF uses it.
>
>
On 14 April 2011 09:34, Francis Davey wrote:
> Strictly speaking, you can make use of them, but contributors are (i) in
> breach of contract in contributing that material and (ii) may (in some
> circumstances) infringe copyright by authorising OSMF to do acts which are
> infringements of the licen
On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston wrote:
> With the upcoming requirement to accept/decline the contributor terms,
> I thought it was about time to figure out whether and how I can agree to
> them. I've had a look around but can't see any FAQs for the contributor
> terms, just for the ODbL p
On 13 April 2011 23:06, Francis Davey wrote:
>> Clause 2 is a grant for certain rights. From previous discussion here,
>> can I assume that I can agree if I'm not the copyright holder, and
>> that I only grant the rights I can under the licence I received the
>> data under?
>
> That depends very m
On 4 January 2011 23:33, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
>>> That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have
>>> to delete any OS OpenData-derived content first.
>> However, is there any guarantee that OSMF will remo
>> That requirement is only for OSMF to provide attribution when they
>> distribute the OSM data. It does not force OSMF to require other
>> downstream data users to provide similar attribution when they
>> distribute derivative works / databases. So this clause would not
>> stop OSMF releasing the
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> There are also the Public Domain dedication licenses and the
> attribution-only licenses, which possibly may be treated as an
> authorisation from the provider to include the data in OSM.
PD style licences will probably be ok, but (viral) attribution
licences aren't an
Francis Davey wrote:
> My specific point was that *if* you want the CT's to be permissive
> about importation, then it is fairer on contributors and clearer to
> provide an express list of compatible licenses - to avoid contributors
> having to make the judgment themselves.
I think you should do
Francis Davey wrote:
> My suggestion - which I believe has been/is being chewed over by the
> LWG - is that the CT's make an alternative arrangement for
> contributors who want to contribute material that is licensed under
> some other licence.
>
> The way in which clause 2 works gives maximum fle
Francis Davey wrote:
> On 17 September 2010 13:22, David Groom wrote:
> To clarify: the CT's as the currently stand:
>
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
>
> require (per clause 4) OSMF to attribute on request. There is no
> mechanism for that term to be changed, so reg
>>> NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data
>>> hostage in this way. We all have our different opinions on the license,
>
> This is just silly. In what way are NearMap attempting to "hold a lot of
> data hostage". They have allowed the OSM community to trace from
80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give
> OSMF rights that you don't possess.
>
> CC-BY-SA does not grant you "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
> perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
> copyright"
25, Markus wrote:
> Why couldn't this be added to CT Section 3 saying.
>
> If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may
> then not be compatible will need to be removed.
>
> Would this then make cc-by existing data compatible with the new licence?
I don't think a sent
47, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Simon Biber
> wrote:
>> Item 1, First sentence: "You agree to only add Contents for which You are
>> the copyright holder ..."
>>
>> Item 1, Last sentence: "If You are not the copyright holder of the
>> Contents, You represent an
52 matches
Mail list logo
