On 6 April 2014 00:04, Paulo Carvalho wrote:
>> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/710/can-i-use-google-streetview-to-help-create-maps
>
>
> I see many people agree that we can use the images to access reality. This
> does not mean we're using the images themselves, which is copyrighted wor
On 9 April 2013 21:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The ODbL has a provision for "parallel distribution" in 4.7b:
>
> "You may impose terms or technological measures on the Database ... in
> contravention of Section 4.74 a. only if You also make a copy of the
> Database or a Derivative Database availabl
Hi,
I'm relaying a license question from a company that collects lake
bathymetry data and sells specialised GPS devices to fishers and
sailors. They don't make the software on those devices and have to
pay to get their data converted to the format understood by that
software. They'd like to add
Hi,
On 23 October 2012 11:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> ...
> During the license change discussion, my position was often this: Instead of
> trying to codify everything in watertight legalese, let's just make the data
> PD and write a human-readable "moral contract" that lists things we *expect*
> u
Hi,
On 28 July 2012 14:38, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:23:00 +0200
> Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> Not dropping CC-BY-SA would send the signal that
>
> ... everything that has been said about CC-BY-SA not sufficiently
> protecting our data was rubbish,
Like Tobias said the OSMF now h
On 27 July 2012 23:52, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:33:59 +0200
> andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> That's not the point, you still can't mix the future OSM data with
>> CC-By-SA data in the same database and publish that. This ability to
>> "m
On 27 July 2012 20:59, Jaime Crespo wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2012 7:03 PM, "andrzej zaborowski" wrote:
>>
>> On 27 July 2012 00:14, Pavel Pisa wrote:
>> > Dear OSMF responsible,
>> >
>> > even recent discussions about ODBl compatibility with Wikip
On 27 July 2012 00:14, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> Dear OSMF responsible,
>
> even recent discussions about ODBl compatibility with Wikipedia
> problems shows that there can be problems or complications
> with ODBL only licensed data.
>
> I.e imagine quite realistic scenario. I like to map
> marked hikin
On 28 May 2012 23:03, Mike Dupont wrote:
> moving the discussion to legal
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:02 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> Copying and pasting is not a copyright infringement. The Contributor
>> Terms don't require that the data inserted into the data
Hi,
On 10 March 2012 03:51, Kate Chapman wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> I was wondering what the license implications would be from digitizing
> from balloon maps that had been rectified from other satellite
> imagery.
>
> - So let's say you fly photos of an area
> - To stitch them together you use Google
On 7 March 2012 16:57, Chris Hill wrote:
> On 07/03/12 15:45, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering why people think that. Even trying to put myself in
>> place of someone who thinks the license change is the best thing since
>> sliced bread I still can'
Hi,
On 7 March 2012 09:16, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If there really are people actively remapping and our rushing through the
> license change would sabotage their work and alienate them then yes, we
> should postpone for a month or two. Sadly, here in Germany many people are
> of the opposite opin
On 13 February 2012 12:53, Simon Poole wrote:
> While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 1.0
> for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is quite as
> bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra "string attached" to
> data that is in
On 2 February 2012 15:11, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski schrieb:
>> Yes, of course, I think it is Mike DuPont who said "give away". But
>> obviously we're talking about the grant of rights.
>
>
> Yes, every open soruce license is a grant of righ
Hi Robert,
On 31 January 2012 21:53, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski schrieb:
>
>> I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had
>> not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't
>> contributed (more than bu
On 30 January 2012 15:21, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> (I thought it is i->i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point)
>
> It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a
> non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, a
On 30 January 2012 12:13, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can
>> be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which
>> a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another,
>> new way denotes a sp
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> I sort-of feel responsible for "my areas" of the map, but I wouldn't go
> so far as to call it "my data". I contribute to this map, because I want
> free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into
> the hands of the community of which you and I
On 19 January 2012 21:48, ant wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 18.01.2012 23:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> They are not known. A mailing list has been created (the "rebuild" list)
>> to discuss how exactly the database rebuild is going to happen, and in
>
> I didn't know about that list - I'll join it.
>
>> term
On 18 January 2012 23:33, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 05:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the
>> intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to
>> OSM under CC-By-SA long be
On 16 January 2012 13:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2012/1/16 Russ Nelson :
>> The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very
>> conservative. Is that necessary? I'm pretty sure not, but it's what
>> we're going to have to live with.
>
> +1
Are you serious? Around where I map
On 28 December 2011 01:49, wrote:
> Tomorrow, I am planning to walk along streets which have been marked in red
> on the OSM Inspector. Mainly for exercise, not only for legal reasons. These
> streets exist for about 100 years and everybody who walks there needs to add
> the same tags:
> highw
On 27 December 2011 15:31, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>>
>>> * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
>>> these tags are not present any more in the current version
>>
>>
>>
Hi,
On 24 December 2011 20:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:27:19 -0500
> Richard Weait wrote:
>> - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
>
> I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
>
> * treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing
On 21 December 2011 12:43, Ed Avis wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>>- is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
>>>reconciling the data base?
>>
>>Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects
>>that a
On 20 December 2011 21:27, Richard Weait wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning
> tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition.
>
> Draft minutes are here.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZIQSl0xXpUFbqTeknz61BYgfCINDTzlA
[changing lists]
On 15 December 2011 13:30, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> On 15/12/2011 13:17, David Groom wrote:
>> Yes it should be considered a break, because in that case you know what
>> the
>>
>> source for moving the nodes was.
>
> Good. Now do the license change impact auditing tools current
On 27 November 2011 15:14, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up
>> edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just
>> retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL qu
On 27 November 2011 14:10, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Mike N. wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> there are some people whose edits we know we can keep somehow (even if
>>> someone has to manually copy them and upload under their own account)
>> Is this a way that we might be able to retain a
>> de
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>> If all your contributions can be considered CC0/PD, then you grant
>> all right to everybody who wants to use the data, so your statements
>> are definitely in conflict with themselves. Nobody in our friendly
>> OSM community can h
On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smith wrote:
> On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
> wrote:
>> 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 c
On 17 June 2011 17:17, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>> 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
>>> that the content is not protected by data
On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
>> that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
>> which would prevent their uses.
>
&
On 14 May 2011 18:49, Kolossos wrote:
> This september will be a relative large event from Wikimedia-side across
> europe: "Wiki Loves Monuments". It is a public photo contest around
> monuments (overview of the cultural heritage, also small houses) and we will
> create lists of monuments in Wikip
On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> Thanks Grant,
>
> I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe
> unclear:
>
> What does this phrase (about the transferred rights )in the contributor
> terms mean:
>
>> From CT 1.2.4/2
>> " These righ
On 17 April 2011 11:39, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor
> terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach
> of the CC-BY-SA license.
>
> Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that
> co
Hi Joao,
On 21 January 2011 16:32, Joao Neto wrote:
> Great points Anthony. Thanks for sharing!
> To be honest I think the share-alike aspect of the license is too
> restrictive and working against the project. The most successful projects in
> the open source / community space all seem to have a
On 6 January 2011 01:53, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 06/01/11 00:37, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>
>> Most people contributing to free software/free data
>> projects probably have the opposite opinion.
>
> [citation needed]
See next sentence for my reasoning.
>
>>
On 6 January 2011 01:11, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Ed Avis writes:
>> Frederik Ramm writes:
>>
>>> Could someone, of that disposition, let's call him A, not simply do the
>>> following: Make a contract with person B that says "Dear B, you may use
>>> my data but only under ODBL 1.0 and nothing else";
On 5 January 2011 13:24, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 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 t
On 22 December 2010 15:18, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm
>> 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
On 7 December 2010 23:43, Francis Davey wrote:
> On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> Would you agree that the sentence "You do not need to guarantee that
>> is is, but [...]" is not having any effect then? It might have an
>
> No. Its purpose
On 7 December 2010 22:17, Francis Davey wrote:
> On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>
>> Can you explain what "You do not need to guarantee that [contributed
>> data is compatible with our license]" means? Since OSMF is not bound
>> to remo
On 2 December 2010 00:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> fx99 wrote:
>>
>> 2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to
>> OSMF
>> and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, .
>>
>> can somebody explain to me, who is meant by "any party that receives Your
Hi Xavier,
On 22 November 2010 22:03, Xavier Loiseau wrote:
> 1. You don't have to release what you haven't got. So if the only thing
> required for your application to work is the *location* then just store the
> location and not the address. You can still dump the address to a log file
> on inp
Hi,
On 22 November 2010 13:43, Johnny Rose Carlsen wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
>> On 11/21/2010 08:53 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> >
>> > Legally they might have to attribute OSM but I'm really thankful
>> > they don't, because what they have to sell is some shady software
>> > that claims to be ab
Hi,
On 18 November 2010 11:24, Francis Davey wrote:
> On 18 November 2010 10:14, Ed Avis wrote:
>>
>> OK, in that case this needs to be clarified too, since we have all confused
>> ourselves on this list, and if we have done so others might too.
>>
>> So, in that case, if you must give sufficien
Hi,
On 18 November 2010 17:30, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 02:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
>> at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
>> produced map tiles, so they cannot be fair
On 17/11/2010, Grant Slater wrote:
> On 17 November 2010 01:27, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>These people would still want everything that is used by OSM
>> under ODbL to be re-mapped from scratch.
>>
>
> Who are "These people"? Nobody I know is calling for
On 16 November 2010 23:08, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If Creative Commons had been more friendly towards the data licensing issue,
> a similar window could have been opened in a hypothetical CC-BY-SA 3.1;
They could probably make ODbL a compatible license but that wouldn't
satisfy those wanting the a
On 16 November 2010 18:23, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>> I'd personally rather have PD, but
>> the community consensus is not there for that; and if the community wishes
>> to have a share-alike licence, I'm not comfortable with recommending a
>>
Hi,
On 7 November 2010 21:51, Xavier Loiseau wrote:
> Let us suppose (as you mentioned) that the web server contains an OSM derived
> database
> associating each picture identifier with the latitude & longitude where the
> picture has been taken.
>
> Moreover, let us suppose that a user wants t
On 19 October 2010 18:27, Kevin Sharpe wrote:
>>In what jurisdiction?
>
> People will be adding data worldwide.
>
>>yes, anyone can extract and use your data without restriction, regardless
> of whether or not it's added to OSM.
>
> Is this true? If we encourage people to add data direct to OSM th
On 13 October 2010 23:10, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Andrzej,
>
> andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>
>> You may also want to take into account the automatic database rights
>> in some users' contributions (even if not copyrightable), which iirc
>> are not disclaimed by
On 13 October 2010 22:50, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Our new license does have a provision that allows using non-substantial
> extracts without regard to the license. This can be viewed as similar to
> what I described above, although there is a big difference. If one million
> users each make a non-c
On 6 October 2010 00:04, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Mike Collinson wrote:
>> A CC-BY-SA license *is* an explicit permission to you by the rights holder.
>> So that is not a problem and we will revise the CTs to better communicate
>> that in plain language.
>
> What
On 4 October 2010 11:15, David Groom wrote:
>> This is only slowly dawning on me. If this is correct, then we can no
>> longer do imports of CC-BY-SA data, unless the original provider
>> expressly gives open-ended relicensing permission: that is, simply
>> licensing it as CC-BY-SA and ODbL is not
On 2 October 2010 00:22, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Liz wrote
>
> "The data I have contributed (by ground survey, please note) will remain
> copyright to myself, and is not going to be included in the ODbL
> database."
>
> Liz, that's a shame.
>
> My contributions (also done by ground survey) are donat
On 1 October 2010 17:26, Nakor wrote:
> On 9/30/2010 7:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> The Contributor Terms are the _standard_ agreement between contributors
>> and
>> OSMF.
>>
>> But they do not have to be the only agreement. There is nothing to stop
>> OSMF
>> itself adding data outwith the
Hi,
sorry for replying a little late, I'm not up to date,
On 28 September 2010 21:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
>>
>> Which would be true if I had the technical ability to render the
>> data. I don't. However, some kind soul has written a renderer for
>> OSM dat
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 people create a second account so
> they can agree to the CTs, this
On 9 September 2010 06:02, Eric Jarvies wrote:
> I would like to make some suggestions, that otherwise seem obvious to me, but
> may not seem the same to others. This prompted by my recent experience with
> identifying OSM data on a notable third party site/source/repo.
>
> I think the DWG shou
On 7 September 2010 22:59, wrote:
>> 2) The "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
>> license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
>> within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other"
>> gives them that.
>>
>
> I got far enough throu
Hi,
On 3 September 2010 20:32, Anthony wrote:
> That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems
> with imports. One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the
That's true, but the poll shows the point (to the extent that polls
can show anything) that some issues are
Hi,
On 3 September 2010 11:54, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 09/03/2010 10:03 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
>>
>> I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
>> terms. There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as
>> close to what they have, with no chance of what they
On 2 September 2010 03:25, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
>> "maps" are expressly treated as "artistic works" by s.4(2)(a) of the
>> Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective).
>
> Pretty much the same thing in the US. "pictorial, gra
On 1 September 2010 15:42, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Francis Davey schrieb:
>>
>> Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the
>> copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent
>> assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to
>> certain exc
On 31 August 2010 17:00, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Maarten Deen schrieb:
>>
>> On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
>>> projects of non-profit foundations.
>>
>> Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony wrote:
> Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
> a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
> accepter was modified by an accepter, make the modification.
What's the identity of the tag though, is it the key a
On 29 August 2010 16:44, David Groom wrote:
> What I'm not sure about is where in [2] it says
>
> * Where attributes have changed:
> * If the specific tag deleted or changed existed in a prior version,
> roll back that tag to the latest prior version (which could mean re-adding
> deleted tag
Hi,
On 22 August 2010 18:44, David Groom wrote:
> Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence. Since we
> could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to "our" data, it seems
> reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to
> other people data, and
Hi,
On 20 August 2010 10:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> But mappers are not employed by OSMF, so we need some sort of
> contract that says "I, the mapper, allow OSMF to make a database from my
> data and publish it".
This is probably all that the CTs should say, I know that the
translation into lega
Hi,
On 20 August 2010 03:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> one million objects is really not
> something we should make a big fuss about. [...]
> After the Haiti earthquake, 1
> million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks.
So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about?
Ho
On 19 August 2010 22:05, SteveC wrote:
> I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points
> to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I
> don't personally feel is very cool.
That's just another words to say "not linking the new linc
Hi,
On 5 August 2010 02:12, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Also, there's no reason to wait with the fork until some later date in the
> license change process. Indeed, some people are even today holding back on
> edits which are based on sources that might not be ODbL compatible - because
> they fear it
On 25 July 2010 12:21, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> TimSC wrote:
>> We should also get an official statement from OSMF that they will not
>> assert their database rights on our contributions.
>
> Of course if OSMF were to say that they don't assert database right on any
> contribution made by PD people
On 24 July 2010 00:59, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski
> wrote:
>>
>> On 23 July 2010 22:14, Liz wrote:
>> > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
>> >> If you find planet on a bus you are not finding just a pile of
On 24 July 2010 00:02, Richard Weait wrote:
> 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% d
On 23 July 2010 22:14, Liz wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
>> If you find planet on a bus you are not finding just a pile of ordered
>> ones and zeros. It's on media of some type. You might sell the disk
>> as is, but copying the data and selling it would be legally risky. A
On 7 June 2010 21:40, Alexrk wrote:
> Frederik Ramm schrieb am 07.06.2010 19:36:
>>> So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would
>>> be
>>> able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a
>>> ROI
>>> on that work?
>>
>> Our standard repl
On 23 May 2010 11:08, David Mirchin wrote:
> 1. It appears that a Collective Database is only when the OSM database "in
> unmodified form" is part of a collection of independent databases which are
> assembled into a collective whole. Does that mean that if the OSM database
> is modified (to crea
On 21 May 2010 14:47, Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
>>"Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of this database,
>>or works produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that
>>adapted database under the ODbL."
>>
>>(I am trusting/hoping the human readable terms match the legalese
7;t have access either.
Cheers
From 4adf4e6a952605464f44da5e0468f333491870e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrzej Zaborowski
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 00:32:07 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add "UMP-pcPL" as CC-BY-SA source in the list of attributions.
Fix a typo while at it.
---
config/l
On 22 April 2010 01:26, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> This is a serious limitation and leads to many pretty maps *not* being
> made, or being made with non-OSM data. "How is that bad"? You tell me.
> Given a choice of
>
> (a) all maps can be made, but sharing them is a the maker's discretion
>
> versus
>
On 5 February 2010 12:05, Jonas Stein wrote:
> http://www.troiki.de/karte.jpg
> http://www.troiki.de/anfahrt.html
>
> if so, should someone contact troiki and explain
> how to use the osm maps correct.
In cases like this it would be *much* better for both sides if instead
having to put the name "
2010/1/5 Francis Davey :
> 2010/1/4 Anthony :
>> Hence "not copyright assignment, but basically the same thing". You give up
>> the right to sue, and the OSMF gets the right to sue.
...
>
> Now *that* is very much not an assignment of copyright. The difference
> (and the reason why its not "basica
Hi,
2009/12/12 James Livingston :
> One of the claimed problems with CC-BY-SA was that users were worried that
> they could be sued by any contributor for copyright infringement.
>
> Aside from any "can the data have copyright rights" questions, if OSMF was to
> claim some copyright in the data
2009/12/11 James Livingston :
> Some other potential points against using copyright transfer:
> * Given one of the arguments against CC-BY-SA is that in some jurisdictions
> the data isn't subject to copyright, copyright assignment of the data would
> be a bit questionable.
> * Businesses and gover
2009/12/3 James Livingston :
> On 03/12/2009, at 10:19 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>> That was my interpretation too. It appears to me that if some well-meaning
>> body released a set of data under the ODbL (which presumably we recommend as
>> an appropriate licence for geodata) then the OSM project would
2009/8/12 John Smith :
> --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> Probably *something* is there in reality. Buildings, walls,
>> hedges, a
>> park ...? Map these objects (which obviously aren't
>> copyrighted), so
>> people know that someone has visited the area and mapped it
>> in detail.
>> I
2009/6/22 Frederik Ramm :
> Hi,
>
> Jonas Krückel wrote:
>> And the second question is, if it is allowed to translate the agreement
>> for the user at the sign up process (a word was "ported" about the
>> license, I don't really now what this means here)?
>
> If we take all this seriously (and I do
2009/1/25 Richard Fairhurst :
>
> andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is
>> the well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible
>> with sources (and consumers) using the same license. So,
>> say I've
2009/1/24 Rob Myers :
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and
>> every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please
>> leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will
>> remove your data shortly'. Clearly this a
2009/1/22 Mikel Maron :
> Hi Fredrik
>
>> Will they be available to process our input after we see the text?
>>
>> Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the
>> public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take
>> the lawyers' version and our feedback
94 matches
Mail list logo
