openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lis
On 24/09/2020 10:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
it contains changesets, notes, etc. but not diary posts or changeset
comments (correct me if I’m wrong).
You're wrong:
https://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet/discussions-latest.osm.bz2
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compt
exist)?
Surely you just leave it there but change it to access=private or
whatever...
As and when you find a legitimate way to map the real public footpath
you can add that in separately.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal
ally the people given the
posters were provided a toolkit that allowed them to use OS or OSM data
depending on what was best for a given station and they made a mistake
and attached the wrong copyright statement to the OSM produced ones.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
ht
ights should be limited to active
contributors, was IMHO a bad idea.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ring that it will in practice be
impossible.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ll-grounded criticism and with personal attacks.
Hardly anyone of the people who criticised my suggestion have made any efforts
to seriously work towards alternative solutions to the problem, and those who
did were themselves ignored.
What exactly was this constructive proposal?
Tom
--
Tom Hugh
us to block everybody for six months so a vote could be rigged
would clearly be unreasonable and would be ignored.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ked out of logging in.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
, and about 50 who
have declined, i.e more than average. We think decliners are trying to game the
system, particular with regard to deleting then recreating relations.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
1/changes-to-the-os-opendata-licence/
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
alk and stop trying to
move them around.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
be able to find that in the rails_port source code history.
I doubt it, because there weren't any contributor terms before that.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstr
...and be very grateful to that person!
please do not hesitate!
It will be whichever articles deal with copyright and database right.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
link was pointing to originally!
Somebody probably asked us to remove something - that requires a rebuild
of the archive.
Specifically in this case I think Richard had forwarded an email sent to
the list owner to the list, and the author of the email objected and
asked for it to be removed.
>
we don't need to explain how attribution is
handled but rather that we don't need to mention that it's a change
because a new user has no knowledge of previous arrangements.
In other words the first sentence of the last paragraph is not needed
for a new user
urrently.
New users don't need to know that we're making a change, or that
attribution is handled differently - they just need to know how things
work now, not how they used to work.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
_
idence? Go our and beg somebody
to steal our data so we can sue them and see if CC works?
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
ames from Google.
Ignoring the contract restrictions Google impose via their terms of use
you mean? You see, other people do think contracts are needed ;-)
Yes, I know that the whole question of whether those terms are binding
in contract law given the lack of explicit accept
p.org was lacking
attribution and the user in question simply reverted that edit without
any comment or discussion.
The main issue of debate surrounds exactly what forms of attribution
are/are not valid.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/
her question.
It's not the map itself that is interesting, it's the paths they have
drawn on it (many of which post date 1956 presumably) but if they have
only used that old map in doing so then there is no derivation problem.
Of course like you I'm not sure, from a practica
r.
Bear in mind that even if you get it with an FOI request that does not
give you permission to copy or distribute it to anybody else - copyright
and database rights still apply in the normal way to information
obtained via FOIA unless explicitly waived.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu
ings in the blog.
How about we calm down, wait until the game is live this evening and we
might be able to see what they've done and if it is a problem...
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/
___
legal
On 18/08/09 11:18, Peter Miller wrote:
>
> On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:30, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 18/08/09 09:27, Peter Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Andy mentions that copyright violation needs to go to the Data
>>> Working
>>> Group. Why? Sure the foundation n
s, like sending email direct to the
user from somebody "official" (ie the foundation) that ordinary users
are not able to do. Hopefully people will be more likely to respond to
such communication to explain what they are doing which can help
determine whether there is in fact a problem w
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> Does anyone have the e-mail address for Tom Hughes so I could request
> the creation of a public domain mailing list for OSM? Is there a more
> appropriate way to handle this request?
I'm not hard to find... I'm also not the right person to create
Peter Miller wrote:
> I also notice that there are technical tasks that need an owner and
> other items on the TODO list. Any offers?
I already have the implementation work in hand.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.comp
the theory is that because the shows had the same
characters and things there was derivation involved, but is seems
quite a stretch really.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetm
e a delete button.
If it's not one of your traces then the question is, how do you know
what the source was and have you spoken to the person that uploaded it
about the problem?
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/
___
l
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would certainly prefer that people using our data provide a link
>> to www.openstreetmap.org or the top level wiki index pag
dvertise our project
that is not a good URL to use.
I would certainly prefer that people using our data provide a link
to www.openstreetmap.org or the top level wiki index page as that
would do a better job of advertising our project to people that follow
the attribution link, which is surely the wh
eone could take the data, strip the
> licensing notice and distribute it as his own?
Yes, but you would be breaking the law and could be sued as
without the license granted you by the copyleft license you
are left in the default position for an
tract had not been
>> breached, which is zero in our case.
>
> Surely if someone breaches contract you would sue them to, well, stop
> breaching the contract?
Injunctive relief is the other option, yes.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/
_
; fantasizing about having legal powers to enforce anything.
The problem is that we know that if we go down that route we will
almost certainly loose (a) a lot of contributors and (b) a lot of
existing data.
We know this because a number of people have stood up and said they
will withdraw their
erstand the situation it is fine, so long as you use one
of the two Yahoo provided APIs to access it - either the javascript
one or the flash one.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@open
le on a CC-BY-SA
basis. The fact that the project has itself been outside the terms
of that license is neither here nor there - that is after all one
of the things we are trying to fix!
I'm not quite sure why you think the project is violating BY though
as SA is the main problem area?
Tom
ight.
I think the concept of an explicit requirement to hand back data
is the part of this plan that I gave most concerns about - it was
certainly far and away the most problematic clause of the original
Mozilla license I think, and the whole idea seems to have largely
vanished since then in most open licenses.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nick Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 11:41 AM, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I believe so, yes. A shapefile would be a derived database and hence
>> would have to be licensed on the sam
assed as distribution of the
> database? What should my company do in this case?
Clearly that is distribution of the database so 4.6(b) would require
you to make an unrestricted version available.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/
___
39 matches
Mail list logo
