Matt Amos schreef:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:10 AM, 80n<80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
>>
>>> So if you have a Produced Work based on:
>>> - the database: no need for reverse engineering since the database is
>>> freely available
>>>
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:10 AM, 80n<80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
>> So if you have a Produced Work based on:
>> - the database: no need for reverse engineering since the database is
>> freely available
>
> The database is not freely available. It is
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> my understanding is that, because we have database rights (and
>> possibly other IP rights) in the original database, the re-created
>> database is still (a substantial extract of) an ODbL licensed
>> database.
>
> So you ca
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> how does 4.3 interact with that, or any of this discussion
> about bsd/whatever-the-hell-you-like licenses for produced
> works? (the you must attribute the database on produced
> works bit)
I don't see any way in which ODbL allows you to distribute a Produced Work
without
Matt Amos wrote:
> RichardF's findings on tracing over photographs make me wonder
> whether similar arguments can be made for tracing over rendered
> images.
Well, the issue is whether licensing an image as BSD (or CC-BY-SA, or
all-rights-reserved, or whatever) automatically "overwrites" all ot
2009/6/9 Frederik Ramm :
> Hi,
>
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> my understanding is that, because we have database rights (and
>> possibly other IP rights) in the original database, the re-created
>> database is still (a substantial extract of) an ODbL licensed
>> database.
>
> So you can create a substanti
Hi,
Matt Amos wrote:
> my understanding is that, because we have database rights (and
> possibly other IP rights) in the original database, the re-created
> database is still (a substantial extract of) an ODbL licensed
> database.
So you can create a substantial extract of a database without ever
> Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2009 01:54:07 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
> Portugal
> >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of
> Produced Works
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The LWG has mentioned this issue with ODC. There wil
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Before, the reverse engineering clause would have kicked in and forced
> FSM to be under ODBL. In the future, the above will be fully legal, and
> the resulting FSM database, which contains facts derived from OSM data
> but which were not in d
Hi,
Henk Hoff wrote:
> It is proposed to removed the clause 4.7 altogether
I think that is a good idea.
Just to clarify:
* I use OSM data to create a printed A-Z map of London (which is clearly
not a data base, is it?)
* I publish that produced work under a BSD license
* A competing project
Peter Millar schreef:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Henk Hoff"
>> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
>> Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2009 01:54:07 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
>> Portugal
>> Subject: Re: [OS
> - Original Message -
> From: "Henk Hoff"
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
> Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2009 01:54:07 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
> Portugal
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of
SteveC schreef:
> On 6 May 2009, at 16:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> With 0.9, we identified the problem of "produced works" not being
>> releasable under CC-BY-SA (or any other share-alike license, say
>> GFDL or
>> even GPL where included in software) because of the reverse
On 6 May 2009, at 16:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mike Collinson wrote:
>> The new text is available at
>> http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and includes "diff"
>> versions so that you can see clearly what changes are made.
>
> With 0.9, we identified the problem of "produced work
Hi,
Mike Collinson wrote:
> The new text is available at
> http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and includes "diff"
> versions so that you can see clearly what changes are made.
With 0.9, we identified the problem of "produced works" not being
releasable under CC-BY-SA (or any other sha
15 matches
Mail list logo
