On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:57:19PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
>
> I don't think intent alone is enough, if the intent is to limit
> derivative copies you need to stipulate that in your license to B,
> otherwise you know that C is able to do what ever he likes based on
> the license between B and C.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:57 AM, John Smith wrote:
> > Person A also should do as much as they can to make sure any potential
> > Person C is aware of the intention. In the case of OSM, it helps that
> it's
> > the largest open map data project - it's likely anyone thinking of
> creating
> > a ma
On 21 June 2011 23:31, Stephen Gower wrote:
> [Sorry to quote so much context - please do scroll down!)
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
>> I think the question being asked arises from the following
>> hypothetical chain of events:
>>
>> 1/ Person A has a
[Sorry to quote so much context - please do scroll down!)
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> I think the question being asked arises from the following
> hypothetical chain of events:
>
> 1/ Person A has a database that he licenses under ODbL.
>
> 2/ Person
On 21 June 2011 05:46, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: "All such additions or edits
> submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be
> used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual
> which submitted the addition or edit at th
Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: "All such additions or edits
submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be
used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual
which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time."
And here's Nick's interpretation:
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater wrote:
> If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially
> for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely
> difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a
> database.
That's assuming a single party act
On 19 June 2011 14:32, John Smith wrote:
> I forgot to ask, do SVG files constitute a produced work?
>
> The kind OSM.org currently outputs as SVG maps.
>
Copying from talk-au where you re-posted...
Nearly 12 months since you raised this thread last it was also
answered then.
Yes, SVG is an
On 20 June 2011 00:53, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles,
>> which don't offer attribution.
>
> The ODbL requires attribution of the database.
>
> The database can contain other attribution.
>
> Have you forgotten the PD ti
I forgot to ask, do SVG files constitute a produced work?
The kind OSM.org currently outputs as SVG maps.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 19 June 2011 23:20, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check
> for compatibility with the current license. But the current license
> is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay.
Since things seem to be going head first towards ODBL should
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 19 June 2011 20:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
wrote:
> While person C could indeed get access to the original data (which
> must be offered by B), in the hypothetical situation I envisaged, they
> choose not to do so. They obtain the produced work under PD/CC0 or
> CC-By without seeing the databas
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 cc-by-sa.
>>>
>>
>> Oh and as for CTs, they don't g
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 some sort of combination of 2 an
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 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 some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along
> the lines that person B needs to spe
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 19 June 2011 19:55, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> I just wanted to make clear that our current data
> is submitted under CC-BY-SA (at least our community members declares so)
> but there is absolutely no prove that the data submitted
> can be CC-BY-SA.
Well the assumpti
19 juni 2011 6:59
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com
regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> What if Be
On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before-
> publicating
> her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's and claiming CC0
> ;<)
It's silly because some people injected a silly argument i
tafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: zaterdag 18 juni 2011 12:36
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com
regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait wrote:
> Is th
On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith wrote:
> On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait wrote:
>> Is this similar?:
>>
>> Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA
>> OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or
>> something.
>> Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tile
On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait wrote:
> Is this similar?:
>
> Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA
> OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or
> something.
> Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data.
> Chuck, in USA
Hi,
Richard Weait wrote:
Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA
OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or
something.
Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data.
Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later cont
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 18 June 2011 19:48, Francis Davey wrote:
> 2011/6/18 John Smith :
>> Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the
>> license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler
>> with a solid example.
>>
>> OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA l
2011/6/18 John Smith :
> Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the
> license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler
> with a solid example.
>
> OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA license and
> for the purpose of this example doesn't
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 the US and
> the EU. What you can do with tiles will depe
2011/6/18 John Smith :
>
> The problem is this, ODBL is very complicated, much more so than a
> simple copyright license.
>
> In light of that, I'm trying establish if produced work (eg tiles) can
> really be distributed under a non-ODBL contract.
OK. So what I mean by "some of the questions don't
On 18 June 2011 18:24, Francis Davey wrote:
> I'm struggling to see what (if any) problem there is with all this.
> Some of the questions being asked don't make sense.
The problem is this, ODBL is very complicated, much more so than a
simple copyright license.
In light of that, I'm trying establ
2011/6/18 John Smith :
>
> Nice try, but you also have to take into account the fact that the
> ODBL disclaims a lot of copyright on the data since it deems the
> database a composition of facts.
>
The ODbL states that it licences any copyright (or neighbouring
rights) in the database (at 2.1(a)).
On 18 June 2011 17:27, davespod wrote:
> What I am saying is that Creative Commons guidance appears to suggest that,
> in the case of music, you can license a recording under CC-by-SA without
> licensing the composition under CC-by-SA (and indeed it is well established
> in copyright law that com
JohnSmitty wrote:
> As I said before, you can easily do this with copyright, use CC-by-ND
> instead of CC-by-SA, but if something is licensed as CC-by-SA it can
> legally be derived from as long as the resulting work is also
> CC-by-SA.
What I am saying is that Creative Commons guidance appears t
On 18 June 2011 05:25, davespod wrote:
> In a similar vein, I think OSMF and any other publisher of OSM-derived map
> tiles under CC-by-SA would be well advised to be explicit about what it is
> they are licensing under CC-by-SA. In other words, they should follow the
> advice here (under "Be spec
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith
>> wrote:
>>> On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
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 database rights, patents or DRM,
>>> whic
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.
>
> News to me. Do you have
On 18 June 2011 01:10, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the
> countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the derived
> database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the EU you are
> not in trouble, just if.
Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the
countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the
derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the
EU you are not in trouble, just if.
Simon
Am 17.06.2011 16:54, schrieb John Smit
On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
>>> patents to prove to you that your reasoning "either somethi
On 18 June 2011 00:13, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> No. Please re-read, and try to understand, my "Patents" example. You do not
Patents don't apply, and contract restrictions don't transfer without
explicit agreement from both parties to that contact, which is why I'm
asking if websites would have to b
Hi,
On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote:
So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced
works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from,
Ignore my words if you want but don't claim you are "met with silence".
unless the
ODBL prevents this in which case tile u
On 18 June 2011 00:06, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles.
My question was about produced works (tiles) and restrictions that
they could be licensed under, regardless if I am distributing or
tracing or selling for that matter, if someone produces tiles
On 18 June 2011 00:06, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
>>
>> CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
>> cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?
>
> Sorry, I tho
Hi,
On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:
Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?
Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles.
Tiles can be put un
On 17 June 2011 19:18, John Smith wrote:
> On 17 June 2011 19:10, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 06/17/11 10:49, John Smith wrote:
Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
Produced Work.
>>>
>>> So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-s
On 17 June 2011 19:10, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/17/11 10:49, John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
>>> Produced Work.
>>
>> So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then?
>
> Only if the amount of data trac
Hi,
On 06/17/11 10:49, John Smith wrote:
Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
Produced Work.
So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then?
Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
This echoes the "reverse engineering" disc
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ben Last wrote:
> The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been
> derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes
> the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db. Not being
I'm still finding
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> the last time I read the CTs (which have several versions), there was a
> clear reference to me having the rights to the data and perpetually
> licensing those rights to another organisation
> That would stop me signing up whether I used Yah
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Ben Last wrote:
> James; all I can say is that the paragraph in question was written by our
> General Counsel specifically to allow existing contributions to stay in
> place. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't comment on interpretation!
> Regards
>
>
Hi Ben,
I'd lik
James; all I can say is that the paragraph in question was written by our
General Counsel specifically to allow existing contributions to stay in
place. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't comment on interpretation!
Regards
Ben
PS: TRS80? I'm old enough to have owned one when they were new :(
On 1
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Last"
To: "David Groom" ; "OSM Australian Talk List"
; "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of
derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStre
On 15 June 2011 19:52, David Groom wrote:
>
> sorry to be pedantic, but when you say "the second paragraph allows edits
> submitted before the 17th of June 2011 under CC-BY-SA (i.e., by someone who
> hadn't accepted the new CTs
> at the time of submission) . to stay in the database", do yo
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Last"
To: "OpenStreetMap Learned Discussions" ; "OSM
Australian Talk List" ; "Licensing and other
legal discussions."
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:30 AM
Subject: [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of
derived works from PhotoMaps
56 matches
Mail list logo
