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
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:24 AM, 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.
Oh, that's a good point. So there are existing li
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 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 I was getting at:
1) The CTs require that incoming be l
Grant Slater writes:
>>>neither CC-By-SA
>>>nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
>>>current contributor terms.
>>
>>Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them.
>
>Automatic presumed compatibility no. Receiving permission from
>restrictive data source
On 5 October 2010 08:28, Ed Avis wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>
>>To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA
>>nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
>>current contributor terms.
>
> Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them.
>
Automati
andrzej zaborowski writes:
>To answer Steve's question: yes, neither CC-By-SA
>nor ODbL nor CC-By-SA and ODbL dual-license are compatible with the
>current contributor terms.
Or, in other words, OSM itself is not compatible with them.
--
Ed Avis
_
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 Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Groom wrote:
> The particular issues I believe you have concerns with have also been
> discussed extensively on this list. You wont be surprised if I say that not
> everyone agrees with you interpretation.
Oh? Which bit - and what's the consensus interpretat
Hi,
Is the following statement correct: "Under the new Contributor
Terms, you may only contribute to content to OSM that you own, or have
been given authority to license to the OSMF for future relicensing."
This is only slowly dawning on me. If this is correct, then we can no
longer do imports o
10 matches
Mail list logo
