I would have to strongly agree with Robert. Matter of fact my position
is that we have in the past been too lenient in this respect and should
be much more strict going forward matching the growth of OSM and its
usage globally.
Unluckily the situation that IP law tends to be very territorial and
On 21 December 2015 at 16:48, Tom Lee wrote:
> The key thing here is that OSM *itself* would clearly be in compliance with
> LPI's terms. I think that's the bar that has to be cleared.
I have to disagree here. OSM is not just about OSM's own use of the
data, it is also about providing data to oth
On 22 December 2015 at 03:48, Tom Lee wrote:
> Point 1 is simple agreement.
>
> Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every
> possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as unlikely
> as any).
>
> Point 3 is the least appealing, but I would personall
Point 1 is simple agreement.
Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every
possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as
unlikely as any).
Point 3 is the least appealing, but I would personally feel comfortable
proceeding under the assumption that "i
I got a response:
>>- OpenStreetMap (OSM) may use and incorporate NSW data and derived products
>>into its database if attribution is provided as previously specified in this
>>email chain.
>Agree
>>- You understand that the OSM database into which the NSW data will be
>>incorporated is presen
On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:
> If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of
> attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it
> would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to dual
> licence the data under the O
I agree that there's no harm in sending another email asking for assent to
more specific terms. I've drafted some suggested language, to make this
easy.
Having recently spoken to a number of parties about Australia's open data
push (specifically address data), including folks from the PM's office
On 11 December 2015 at 21:04, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Talking with their legal people it was, or at least as far as I
> understood them, their view that the the ODbL style of attribution
> (where downstream don't need to provide attribution for any
> incorporated or derived datasets) is fine within
On 12 December 2015 at 04:11, Tom Lee wrote:
> Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as:
>
> - questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the
> impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution
> requirements in a geo context
> - the rightshol
Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as:
- questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the
impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution
requirements in a geo context
- the rightsholder has made it clear that they understand downstream
att
We've received some correspondence from a state government department
regarding the use of their CC BY 3.0 AU licensed data and imagery
within OpenStreetMap.
One OSM member initially received the response:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/New_South_Wales_Government_Data#Cleary.27s_L
11 matches
Mail list logo
