I am trying to find a solution that will allow the UMP project in Poland
to continue using OSM data and therefore reciprocally allow OSM to keep
a large amount of data that went into making the initial road map of
Poland and which is still there. The UMP project collects road routes
within Pol
Legally there's no downside for granting extra permissions. They are
additive on top of whatever licence is used and don't damage anyone
else's use of the data. However, it is not in the spirit of the
community terms for OSMF to grant exemptions or extra permissions -
particularly not if they are
Hi,
On 03/06/12 10:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
"The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open.
Provided that UMP continues to publish
Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could
be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?
--
Ed Avis
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-
told that it would permit
this.
So... sorry, but no, I don't think it'll work. :(
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5541176.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Na
Am 6. März 2012 17:52 schrieb Frederik Ramm :
> On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
>> (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
>> our data outright) would be a valid use of our data t
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
> - as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a
> statement?
I think OSMF should give UMP concession to use OSM data in their maps
of Poland with their current license, like this:
"The OSMF acknowledges the kind hel
Richard Fairhurst writes:
>If we were to say "we don't think verifying data creates a derived work",
>would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example)
>use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView
>cars/satellites out; and have the new streets o
Mar 2012 21:40:41
To:
Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Richard Fairhurst writes:
>If we were to say "we don't think verifying data creates a derived work",
>would t
the other community
guidelines that have been defined. If in turn this would lead to UMP
accepting to allow to keep their data, that would be a major win for all!
Kai
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5549
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 05:43, Kai Krueger wrote:
>
> jaakkoh wrote
>>
>> Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of
>> "verification" (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out
>> and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's
>> o
If we need a change to the licence wording to allow Poland to keep their
data, lets put a few words a the end of the licence to allow Poland to do
just that, and put it to vote as required in the contributor terms.
Didn't we adopt the contributor terms just so we have just this flexibility?
I thi
Kai Krueger writes:
>We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an
>ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as
>easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is
>legal and is not covered by the share alike
>That's a big presumption. I would have expected that remapping would be done
>as
>a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA
>data
>at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Isn't not "looking at" existing CC-by-SA data a little OTT? We may as well
forge
memory,
most of my remapping sp far has been based on 6-month old mapping trips from
last summer/autumn) rather than copying tags from the old CC-SA.
Nick
-Nick Whitelegg wrote: -
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
From: Nick Whitelegg
Date: 09/03/2012 11:50AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk
On 09/03/12 10:59, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>
> I can't see who would have a problem with this.
Hi. ;-)
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Indeed.
My point is we can discuss it here on legal-talk, and get the opinions of a
handful of people are hung up on the legals and the licence change already.
Or we can put it to the vote, and I'm confident in the wider community
that we'd get the support of the 75% required to permit Polish OS
Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) "any data published
under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM
data".
This brings no risk, that anyony "big and evil" (whatever that is)
will use it to overrun OSM...
LM_1
2012/3/9 Ian Sergeant :
> Indeed.
>
> My point is we
On 09/03/12 22:36, LM_1 wrote:
> Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) "any data published
> under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM
> data".
> This brings no risk, that anyony "big and evil" (whatever that is)
> will use it to overrun OSM...
> LM_1
What is ve
Verfication would be a process of comparing my own data (lets's call
them A) with osm, likely using some automated precess, that would
output a set of locations or areas where the maps differ more than a
given threshold (dataset B).
Legally you now have three datasets A, OSM and a derivative work o
20 matches
Mail list logo
