on between a database and a produced
work. At one end of the spectrum we have a relational database, at the
other end we have raster image, and in the middle we have something
like SVG.
So where do we draw the line between a database and a derived work?
How do we describe this line in the license
pecific jurisdictions in mind.
The Sunburned Surveyor
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Ulf Möller wrote:
> 80n schrieb:
>
>> As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was
>> grabbed at the last minute from here
>
> It doesn't look like it has been
Andrew wrote: "Suggesting that someone can "just copy ... and strike
out the words
they don't like" is not actually an option. For one, this is a new
license that has to be verified, vetted - and no one else will know
what the implications are or ability to trust the license. And then we
get into t
will get a tick
in the PD licence section (including the Use Case in the 'negative' list).
As such it would make that page less partisan and possibly a useful meeting
place for future decisions.
Would that be useful?"
I think this would be very useful.
The Sunburned Surveyor
On
Very good post Frederick, and a good suggestion. I'm working on
getting an "official" OSM mailing list for PD discussions right now.
The Sunburned Surveyor
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Joseph Gentle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:50 AM
What about a yahoo discussin group for OSM-PD? Would anyone object to that?
Landon
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have the e-mail address for Tom Hughes so I could request
>> the cre
Nothing is ever as simple as you hope. :]
Joseph wrote: "I don't think its that big a deal - we could just say
"if you edit a
node, your edits are also under the same PD license as the node is
currently under" or something."
I think this is a good solution to the problem mentioned above.
Landon
Thanks for doing that initial work Kari. I've been home with the flu,
so I've been a little out of the loop.
I think we could make decisions based on an informal vote of the OSM
contributors interested in PD. As things get more serious we can use a
more formal governance structure, if one is neede
It seems our idea for a public domain repository of OSM data has some
merit. This means we have some things to decide on. A name, what
vehicle we will use to release the data under the public domain, a
host for our mailing list, and a sponsor for our data hosting needs.
Should we just fire up a Go
What you stated makes sense. It's probably better not to make waves.
I've got some USDA imagery I can use instead, although the resolution
isn't as good.
The Sunburned Surveyor
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
AIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
>> Could you map ways using JOSM and Yahoo aerial photography, export the
>> ways for a data set released under the public domain, and then import
>> into OSM? Or does the interpretation of the Yahoo Maps terms-o
ples.
The Sunburned Surveyor
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Joseph Gentle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its a compromise; a compromise which I think the purists on this list (most
> of us) will disagree with.
>
> It does seem like a good way for the share-alike supporters to champion
uff away.
These are just some suggestions. Perhaps they have been discussed in
the past already.
The Sunburned Surveyor
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
I seemed to have immersed myself in the depths of a healthy debate for
which I was not prepared. I don't yet have a full understanding of all
the issues, but I think some statements of Richard give a nice
summary:
"Yes, the new licence fixes 1 and 3. It also goes a long way to
defining what is per
14 matches
Mail list logo
