Hello All!
Forgive me for the previous unfinished version of this mail, here is the
complete version.
Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I
have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I
added later, I still do not know f
Hello All!
I again find that I have to apologize for my bad email skills, my previous
message to this list was not complete when I accidentally managed to send it :(
The save draft, and send buttons are to close to one and other.
Please forgive me for the unfinished mail, I will send a complete
Hello All!
Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I
have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I
added later, I still do not know for sure if the use-cases I presented would
trigger the ODbL share alike clause or not. My con
Am 04.03.2013 13:39, schrieb Jonathan Harley:
> On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
>>> engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not
>>>
Hello,
> Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik:
>> How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is
>> licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD
>> Produced Work to credit OSM?
>> Sincerely,
>>
> This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3
> (
On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried
about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any c
Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik:
> How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is
> licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD
> Produced Work to credit OSM?
> Sincerely,
>
This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3
(http://opendatacom
Hello,
>> Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
>> engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried
>> about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case,
> Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is
>
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
> On 02/03/13 16:17, Erik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Harley
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So - *must* you make your database of user-sourced geodata available to
>>> the
>>> OSM community? I answer no, so long as it
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
> Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
> engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried
> about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case,
Technically, it is possi
Hello,
2013/3/1 Jonathan Harley :
> Produced Works don't have to be licensed under ODbL - they don't have to
> have any specific license - so if you use map tiles whose license doesn't
> require any derived data to be shared back to OSM, you are fine to collect
> data and keep it to yourself - as
On 02/03/13 16:17, Erik Johansson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
So - *must* you make your database of user-sourced geodata available to the
OSM community? I answer no, so long as it resulted from a produced work and
This feel very iffy, I thought this had been
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
> So - *must* you make your database of user-sourced geodata available to the
> OSM community? I answer no, so long as it resulted from a produced work and
This feel very iffy, I thought this had been disproven already, I
might be wrong, but
>Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:48:41 +
>From: Rob Myers
>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0100 (CET), Olov McKie wrote:
>>
>> As I understand our license change, it can be described as this:
>> (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit
>> history
>> where someone not willing to
Rob, I could only follow your line of argument if OSM was a project that is
trying to compete in the same market as a potential commercial player that
is marketing an OSM + proprietary data mix. As OSM isn't, it has a bigger
benefit from allowing liberal use.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Rob
.
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 7:37 AM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:51:18 -0500, Alex Barth wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
despite the economic irrationality of this
It _is_ economically rational to contribute to OSM even if there
wasn't a share alike license.
It's economically rational to keep costs down unt
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> despite the economic irrationality of this
It _is_ economically rational to contribute to OSM even if there wasn't a
share alike license.
This is the point of the matter and where we miss each other.
It's economically more than rational to c
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0100 (CET), Olov McKie wrote:
As I understand our license change, it can be described as this:
(Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit
history
where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited
anything was reverted back in
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:36:48 -0500, Alex Barth wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then
distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without
releasing
the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses, not
Hello All!
Again thank you all for your feedback!
I am currently spending a lot of time thinking about the license and what can
be considered copying, derived works etc. I just realized that there is one
recent event that sets an unprecedented precedence in how to look upon these
questions, it
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
> The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it
> as some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is
> a feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug.
>
Not every feature is a good feature, just
On 28/02/13 14:58, Olov McKie wrote:
Hello All!
Hi Olov, I'll give this a go. My answers are a long way down because I
think cases 1-3 are all essentially the same:
First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about
what answers I would get on my questions, bu
legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;
This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;
This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to
contribute to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the
constraints of using third
It would prohibit me from using the CC0 license if I use any data with a
ODbL license to create a derived database.
- Svavar Kjarrval
On 28/02/13 23:49, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>>
>> It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
>> data
On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:
It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases.
That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You
just can't prohibit people from using them freely.
- Rob.
__
On 27/02/13 21:19, Rob wrote:
Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is
not an option.
And I'd like you to make me a sandwich.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.or
On 27/02/13 20:24, Marc Regan wrote:
I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid
term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at
hand.
+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the
cloud of uncertainty around what you can
On 28.02.2013 01:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Just to make this one point clear:
>
> What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy.
This is not really true. At the core of the ODbL is the idea that
"produced works" and "derivative databases" should be treated
differently, and that
On 28/02/13 00:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never
prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you
from prohibiting stuff!
<3
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-ta
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
> 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
> together in the same "database" software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL,
> filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from
> OSM, the result
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Olov McKie wrote:
> 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use
> the coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our
> application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?
> To clarify,
Hello All!
First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about
what answers I would get on my questions, but some of your answers were not
what I expected, so let me reason a bit about each case and I would love your
feedback on my reasoning. Please also look on case
On 28/02/13 08:04, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely
storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
alike. But on the use cases wiki page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki
It would appear that any and all data associated with a
> >> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
> >> data is used.
> >
> > What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but
> that is
> >
On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
> I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely
> storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
> alike. But on the use cases wiki page
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
> 'It
rote:
>>
>> > WhereAmI wrote:
>> >> It would appear that any and all data associated with a
>> >> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
>> >> data is used.
>> >
>> > What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan
Hi,
On 27.02.2013 21:24, Marc Regan wrote:
+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles,
the cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data
is pretty terrifying.
Just to make this one point clear:
What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and
hurst
> wrote:
>
> > WhereAmI wrote:
> >> It would appear that any and all data associated with a
> >> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
> >> data is used.
> >
> > What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but t
trivially disprovable.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
> Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
&g
ontext:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstr
ons.
>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:19 PM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
>
>
>+1 +1 +1
>
>
>Would love to use OSM data to create a tile server for a project I have in the
>works but the share-alike clause has stopped me from movi
> I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term.
> It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand.
+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud
of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is p
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman wrote:
> My
> understanding is you are saying "I would like it to be this way," but
> at the moment it is not. Correct?
>
Actually to be more specific: I'm saying "I would like geocoding-like use
cases to be clarified, at the moment it is not clear.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman wrote:
> My
> understanding is you are saying "I would like it to be this way," but
> at the moment it is not. Correct?
>
Correct.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.open
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Olov McKie wrote:
> Hej Erik!
>
> Would you please consider reading my mail one more time, and clarify your
> answers, because I do not understand what you are trying to say.
>
> No where in my mail did I say anything about using Google maps or their API,
> yet f
Hi Alex,
You might want to clarify because your email is a bit confusing. My
understanding is you are saying "I would like it to be this way," but
at the moment it is not. Correct?
Yes it is important to clarify the share alike clause, but I think
also important not to confuse people asking how t
Hej Erik!
Would you please consider reading my mail one more time, and clarify your
answers, because I do not understand what you are trying to say.
No where in my mail did I say anything about using Google maps or their API,
yet for the two usecases you have answered about are you talking abo
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Olov McKie wrote:
> I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to
> handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music
> sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of
> the wo
I think all of these use cases should be ok and we should adjust the
community guide lines to clarify that ODbL's share alike clause shouldn't
kick in here.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Olov McKie wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or n
Hello all!
I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not.
I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to
handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music
sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digit
Hi,
with your help, I'll try to answer my own question posted (in full
length) here:
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/14449/license-question-odbl-use-case
I'd first like to mention that my customers, by now, are actively
contributing to OSM and we absolutely want to stick to this spirit (n
>
> Many thanks for your comments Sam.
>
> Unfortunately, unless we allow the current developers to use the data
> without restriction then they will never support an open database. I think
> the solution is to host the database on sourceforge with an PDDL license and
> then automatically up
Many thanks for your comments Sam.
Unfortunately, unless we allow the current developers to use the data
without restriction then they will never support an open database. I think
the solution is to host the database on sourceforge with an PDDL license and
then automatically upload the data to OSM
> >Do you [Kevin] want your data to be usable without restriction, or are you
> trying to restrict it?
> We want the data to be available without restriction.
>
> >Do you want to be able to extract data from OSM and combine it with your
> data?
> Possibly... Let me give you some examples;
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Kevin Sharpe
wrote:
>>Do you [Kevin] want your data to be usable without restriction, or are you
> trying to restrict it?
> We want the data to be available without restriction.
Okay, I misunderstood you, and I'm going to have to pass on answering
this one. Sorry
>Do you [Kevin] want your data to be usable without restriction, or are you
trying to restrict it?
We want the data to be available without restriction.
>Do you want to be able to extract data from OSM and combine it with your
data?
Possibly... Let me give you some examples;
Our data relates to t
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:31 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Yeah, I wouldn't rely on the lack of copyright in what you make
> available through OSM. Rather submit the data to OSM, thus making it
> available under CC-By-SA / ODbL only, and at the same time on your
> homepage as Public Domain.
O
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Kevin Sharpe
wrote:
>>In what jurisdiction?
>
> People will be adding data worldwide.
Basically, I think you have three choices. 1) You consider your data
to be valuable enough to hire a lawyer to try to figure out a way to
keep people from using it without rest
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
>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 then is that
data not covered by the OSM license?
What happ
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Kevin Sharpe
wrote:
> I posted these questions to the Forum and it was suggested that I try here;
>
> We wish to add to OSM data relating to electric vehicle charge point
> locations and capabilities. However, it is not clear to me whether a third
> party could ex
63 matches
Mail list logo
