Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

At 10:11 AM 7/10/2010, Rob Myers wrote: >On 10/07/2010 01:19 AM, MJ Ray wrote: >> >>It also seems a bit like unnecessary licence proliferation. > >That's only because it is. > >They really should have used an ODC licence IMO. > >- Rob. The license aims at much wider coverage of than electronic da

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 10/07/2010 01:19 AM, MJ Ray wrote: It also seems a bit like unnecessary licence proliferation. That's only because it is. They really should have used an ODC licence IMO. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://li

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Mike Collinson wrote: > > [...] > I look forward to any other comments. Anyone see any gotchas? There's what looks like a stupid fiel

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

To come back on topic, I don't think this has made legal-talk yet. Thanks to Jordan Hatcher, whose mail I am re-working: The new UK Open Government Licence is now out:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 10/03/2010 03:12 PM, Dave F. wrote: Again, a statement with caveats included. It's an honest statement of the current situation as I understand it. To give you the precise answer that you want ("Yes/No, OS data/traces are OK under the CTs/ODbL/DbCL") will take time and effort because it

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 03/10/2010 14:12, Rob Myers wrote: On 10/02/2010 12:18 AM, Dave F. wrote: Broadcasting the fact you think a contributor, who disagrees with you, should be banned purely because they have a nickname is: petty/puerile/childish/insecure/inept/pompous/arrogant That is not the argument. The

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 10/02/2010 12:18 AM, Dave F. wrote: Broadcasting the fact you think a contributor, who disagrees with you, should be banned purely because they have a nickname is: petty/puerile/childish/insecure/inept/pompous/arrogant That is not the argument. The argument is that various people on this

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 3 October 2010 10:27, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:04 PM, SteveC wrote: >> Amazingly your domain name, inbox.org, is listed as owned by one Anthony >> DiPierro. > > There's nothing at all amazing about that. It was, in fact, "very > easy to discover". They seem to like wasting

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:04 PM, SteveC wrote: > Amazingly your domain name, inbox.org, is listed as owned by one Anthony > DiPierro. There's nothing at all amazing about that. It was, in fact, "very easy to discover". ___ legal-talk mailing list lega

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Oct 2, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, SteveC wrote a > bunch of stuff. > > I'd like to further ask that you do not repost private messages on a > public message board. > > Your behavior is unacceptable, and I'm not going to respond to it with > more inform

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, SteveC wrote a bunch of stuff. I'd like to further ask that you do not repost private messages on a public message board. Your behavior is unacceptable, and I'm not going to respond to it with more information for you to continue your campaign of lies and harassme

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

> > While we're at it - is John Smith actually Duane Groth? > > > http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01341.html > no. I know his identity and I confirm it is not Duane Groth ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@ope

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Oct 1, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Anthony wrote: > Where are you getting this information, anyway? I'd like to ask you > kindly to stop lying about me. I have never been banned from > Wikipedia. So you're not Anthony DiPierro then? Or are you merely playing with semantics that you weren't kicked, bu

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

andrzej zaborowski writes: >Multiple times on these lists people have been advised to "vote with >their data". Since most contributors were not asked about the >relicense process, then, if they just agree to relicense their data >and then leave the project, OSMF will never know. Yes, it is daft

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 00:58:42 +0100 Grant Slater wrote: > Discussion on handling how to measure 'clean feed' data was started > here: (same problem) thanks Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/lis

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:10 PM, SteveC wrote: > On Oct 1, 2010, at 5:18 PM, "Dave F." wrote: >> On 01/10/2010 19:38, SteveC wrote: >>> You on the other hand actively hide your real name, >> >> And how does that detract from a persons argument? > > Because if someone is continually trolling, which

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Oct 1, 2010, at 5:18 PM, "Dave F." wrote: > This message has gone OT. > > On 01/10/2010 19:38, SteveC wrote: >> Both are very easy to discover. Hell, you can even get my phone number from >> my website. > > What do you want, a medal? Yes please. > >> The hint is in the signature. > >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 1 October 2010 21:55, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > Would you kindly indicate how you are going to remove it? > Discussion on handling how to measure 'clean feed' data was started here: (same problem) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html There is also some minor add

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 01/10/2010 23:53, Grant Slater wrote: On 1 October 2010 23:40, andrzej zaborowski wrote: The people who drafted the CT are not very keen on discussing the CT here otherwise, so this may be the only way to let them know and exercise some democracy in the project. I am not the most wordy p

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

This message has gone OT. On 01/10/2010 19:38, SteveC wrote: Both are very easy to discover. Hell, you can even get my phone number from my website. What do you want, a medal? The hint is in the signature. You on the other hand actively hide your real name, And how does that detract

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 10/01/2010 11:28 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> She's not going to delete her existing contributions from the current >> project, she's just not going to contribute them to the new project. > > There's a new project? > > How exciting! > > What's it c

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 1 October 2010 23:40, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > The people who > drafted the CT are not very keen on discussing the CT here otherwise, > so this may be the only way to let them know and exercise some > democracy in the project. > I am happy to discuss, but I am at heart a server hardware gu

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 10/01/2010 11:28 PM, Anthony wrote: She's not going to delete her existing contributions from the current project, she's just not going to contribute them to the new project. There's a new project? How exciting! What's it called? - Rob. ___ le

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 2 October 2010 00:22, Nick Hocking wrote: > Liz wrote > > "The data I have contributed (by ground survey, please note) will remain > copyright to myself, and is not going to be included in the ODbL > database." > > Liz, that's a shame. > > My contributions (also done by ground survey) are donat

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > Liz wrote > > "The data I have contributed (by ground survey, please note) will remain > copyright to myself, and is not going to be included in the ODbL > database." > > Liz, that's a shame. > > My contributions (also done by ground survey) ar

[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Liz wrote "The data I have contributed (by ground survey, please note) will remain copyright to myself, and is not going to be included in the ODbL database." Liz, that's a shame. My contributions (also done by ground survey) are donated, by me, for the good of the project. If the project shoul

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:21 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > Steve, I assume you are referring to this mailing list: > http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork > > I've pasted your account settings below. Maybe he's thinking about his sockpuppet Jane Smith. If so, I'm the one who blocked that

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:38 PM, SteveC wrote: > You on the other hand actively hide your real name, and the fact you were > banned from > wikipedia. Or would you like to correct me? Well, you're not correct, in that I was never banned from Wikipedia. It is true that I don't like to reveal person

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 05:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I realise Liz has already posted elsewhere that > she's aiming to be disruptive, but I hadn't realised that it was some > form of sub-4chan concerted trolling expedition. As the choices offered by some people seem to be limited t

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > I am not trolling. > I am an active contributor. > We disagree, and I find your arguments less than compelling, especially > today. > hahahahahahahahahah go liz! -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:04:44 -0600 SteveC wrote: > This trolling is starting to get boring again. Please sod off and > join 80n's band of merry morons. the correct way to express your feelings in my culture is "go forth and multiply" I am not trolling. I am an active contributor. We disagree, an

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM, SteveC wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Anthony wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM, SteveC wrote: > >> Personally I think it's time to consider kickbanning the trolls with the > fake names. > > > > TimSC is a "fake name"? If so, what's SteveC? > >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM, SteveC wrote: >> Personally I think it's time to consider kickbanning the trolls with the >> fake names. > > TimSC is a "fake name"? If so, what's SteveC? Both are very easy to discover. Hell, you can even get my p

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM, SteveC wrote: > Personally I think it's time to consider kickbanning the trolls with the fake > names. TimSC is a "fake name"? If so, what's SteveC? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:08 AM, David Groom wrote: > When you say "new licence" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean the ODbL > licence on its own , or the ODbL combined with the proposed CT's. > > If you inlcude the CT's, then do you mean CT version1.0 which people are > currently signing up t

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 10/01/2010 04:01 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Rob Myers  wrote: >>> >>> At worst we have conflicting reports. I'll take >>> legal advice over reported email comments in that case, though. >> >> That's fine for the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

5 To: ; Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license _my_ first and second paragraphs? there was only one from me. Maybe what I wrote was too concise. My point is that currently one needs to import; otherwise it's not routable. Combining at

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

.@openstreetmap.org > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:18:56 > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." > > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license > > _

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 10/01/2010 04:01 PM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Rob Myers wrote: At worst we have conflicting reports. I'll take legal advice over reported email comments in that case, though. That's fine for the half dozen (?) of you who have access to that legal advice. But for the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > At worst we have conflicting reports. I'll take > legal advice over reported email comments in that case, though. That's fine for the half dozen (?) of you who have access to that legal advice. But for the tens of thousands of us who only have

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Oct 1, 2010, at 4:46 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:01:12 +0100 > Rob Myers wrote: > >> On 10/01/2010 10:38 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: >>> I ask once more >>> >>> "from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?" >> >> The vote. >> >>> OSMF is a small set of pe

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Oct 1, 2010, at 6:43 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > TimSC wrote: >> It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the >> community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more >> fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the >> mailing list! > > Seriously? > >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 01/10/10 13:43, Richard Fairhurst wrote: TimSC wrote: It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the mailing list! Seriously? Seriously, no. :)

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 10/01/2010 01:27 PM, John Smith wrote: On 1 October 2010 21:04, Rob Myers wrote: You're joking. It's a few pints worth of money. Nice, just insult most people not in a first world nation,that sort of money is a months worth of wages (or more) to some... I was referring specifically to st

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 01/10/10 12:04, Rob Myers wrote: OSMF would not be competent if it ignored the problems with the licence. It would be failing in its duty. > Where is the community mandate for that duty? > The OSMF just assuming powers is what is at the core of the question of mandate. OSMF's creation m

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

that she's aiming to be disruptive, but I hadn't realised that it was some form of sub-4chan concerted trolling expedition. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5591187.html Sent fr

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 1 October 2010 21:04, Rob Myers wrote: > You're joking. It's a few pints worth of money. Nice, just insult most people not in a first world nation, that sort of money is a months worth of wages (or more) to some... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 01/10/10 11:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more "from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?" It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the licence for the data which they've contributed[1]. My mind is slightly b

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 03:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > I ask once more > > "from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?" > > It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the > licence for the data which they've contributed[1]. I agree with what yo

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 10/01/2010 11:46 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: Not everyone can join OSMF. Joining is restricted to persons with enough spare cash to pay a fee in Pounds Sterling, access to a system for international money transfer if not in the UK, and a number of other practical points dependent on UK law - I

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

existing data is still available under CC-BY-SA and you can host it anywhere you like, e.g. at fosm.org. But it's OSMF's choice as to what happens at openstreetmap.org. Richard [1] insofar as rights exist etc. etc. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.na

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:01:12 +0100 Rob Myers wrote: > On 10/01/2010 10:38 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > I ask once more > > > > "from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?" > > The vote. > > > OSMF is a small set of persons and is not representative of OSM as a > > community. > >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 01/10/10 11:01, Rob Myers wrote: On 10/01/2010 10:38 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more "from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?" The vote. That is effectively an admission that you don't have a mandate from the contributors because the vote was only of OSMF member

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 10/01/2010 10:38 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more "from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?" The vote. OSMF is a small set of persons and is not representative of OSM as a community. Any representational or governing body will be a "small set of persons". Depen

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:37:14 +0200 Frederik Ramm wrote: > I don't know how long you have been following the process, but the > vote is long past. Members of the OSMF have had such a vote last year > and agreed to go ahead with the new license. The switch to ODbL is > already decided; further vote

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license I thought I had read that there would be a second phase vote at the time of switch over based on a full understanding of data loss and effect. I can't now find that reference so I may have imagined it. What is happening with the revisions to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Hi, sorry for replying a little late, I'm not up to date, On 28 September 2010 21:19, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: >> >> Which would be true if I had the technical ability to render the >> data.  I don't.  However, some kind soul has written a renderer for >> OSM dat

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

n? I have accepted the first version, but aren't they now changing? Kevin --Original Message-- From: Frederik Ramm To: ke...@cordina.org.uk To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 1 Oct 2010 08:37 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new licen

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Kevin, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: (b) that there is a very clear (and legally sound) description of the effect of the new licence when the time comes to vote so we can make an informed decision which way to vote based on the effect it will have. I don't know how long you have been following t

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

nsing and other legal discussions. Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstre

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I utterly, totally, fail to understand why one would want to copy OS data > into OSM. If you think that OS data is good for you, just draw your map from > OS data. If you would like OS data for your base map but cycleways from OSM > - go

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 30 September 2010 18:31, Rob Myers wrote: > On 09/30/2010 02:56 AM, John Smith wrote: >> >> Those sorts of comments are made to distract from the real issue, that >> they know that the license is most likely incompatible, and because it >> most likely won't effect them personally. Yet they hold

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 09/30/2010 02:56 AM, John Smith wrote: Those sorts of comments are made to distract from the real issue, that they know that the license is most likely incompatible, and because it most likely won't effect them personally. Yet they hold stead fast to the current course of things regardless of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 30 September 2010 07:58, Paul Williams wrote: > or contributor loss), but have felt unhappy about such comments as > those quoted above that the OS data doesn't matter and so it doesn't > matter whether the licence is compatible - I and I am sure many other > people find the OS data to be a ver

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Hello, On 29 September 2010 18:19, Frederik Ramm wrote: ... > > Why, of course! You will be able to use OS OpenData under the rules they > come under. This is completely independent of OSM. Even if OSM's and OS's > licenses were totally incompatible that would not reduce the usefulness of > one o

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:47:07 +0100 Grant Slater wrote: > 2 of 7 LWG members in > attendance. what is the number for a quorum? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29 September 2010 18:34, Dave F. wrote: >  On 29/09/2010 13:21, Grant Slater wrote: >> >> The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. > > Do you know what date it got recorded in the LWG minutes? > The message was via email outside the weekly minutes. But it was badly recorded in the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29/09/2010 13:21, Grant Slater wrote: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. Do you know what date it got recorded in the LWG minutes? Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.or

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Hi, Dave F. wrote: As I asked you before, will I be able to use this data under the proposed new regulations? Why, of course! You will be able to use OS OpenData under the rules they come under. This is completely independent of OSM. Even if OSM's and OS's licenses were totally incompatible

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Grant Slater wrote: > Yes our legal council believes CT/ODbL is compatible. The lawyer did > supply a breakdown and reasoning why he believes it is compatible. BUT > the Contributor Terms are currently being revised and will need > further review. I cannot release

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Dave F. wrote: > On 29/09/2010 12:22, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> kevin wrote: >>> The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible >>> with current practise >> Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. >> >> Blog post on movin

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29 September 2010 15:15, Dave F. wrote: >  On 29/09/2010 12:22, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] >> OS OpenData released: April 2010. > > The campaign to get OS to release data started long before it happened, as > you well know. I don't know the pre

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:47 PM, David Groom wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Grant Slater" < >> openstreet...@firefishy.com> >> To: ; "Licensing and other legal discussions." >> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:21 PM >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29/09/2010 13:21, Grant Slater wrote: The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. My question in the original post couldn't have been clearer so I find it frustrating that it took this long to answer. Do you know what date it got recorded in the LWG minutes? Dave F.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29/09/2010 12:22, Richard Fairhurst wrote: kevin wrote: The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April 2010.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29 September 2010 22:21, Grant Slater wrote: > The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible. Any reason you specifically didn't mention that OS's lawyer refutes that claim? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://list

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29 September 2010 13:15, wrote: > But since the licence hasn't been implemented yet, surely the final decision > on choice needs to be made now.  Practice has clearly changed since 2008. > > If the decision was set in stone in 2008 why wasn't there a big warning when > the OS data was releas

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

discussions. ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 29 Sep 2010 12:40 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Kevin Cordina wrote: > The OS are going to have to dictate the licence because their data is now in > OSM and unless

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

le? Kevin --Original Message-- From: Richard Fairhurst Sender: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org ReplyTo: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 29 Sep 2010 12:22 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license kevin wrote: > The issue

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Kevin Cordina wrote: > The OS are going to have to dictate the licence because their data is now in > OSM and unless you remove it totally, the new licence will have to be > compatible with the terms it was added under. Kevin, I think you've missed a large part

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Dave F. wrote: > OSSV adds additional, useful data that would otherwise be unobtainable. > Waterways & Wooded  areas are the prime examples. This is untrue. We've mapped many rivers and wooded areas by both ground survey, aerial imagery and other copyright-expire

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

y. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5583494.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-ta

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29/09/10 12:22, Richard Fairhurst wrote: kevin wrote: The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

geodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5583459.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 28/09/2010 21:28, SteveC wrote: Meanwhile, back in Reality... The OSMF made no such demands, didn't turn it's back, and in fact has a healthy and friendly relationship with many people at the OS. In fact, I even helped the OS with the first version of OpenSpace. You paranoid guys really k

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 09/28/2010 08:47 PM, Dave F. wrote: They went to the OS & demanded they release their data.When they did, OSMF almost immediately turn back to them & say "oh we don't want it now".That's what I'm finding hard to conceive. A number of projects asked the OS to free their data (including OSM,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Sep 28, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Dave F. wrote: > On 28/09/2010 20:27, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Dave F. wrote: When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then? Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth your time >>> >>> No

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 28/09/2010 17:55, Chris Hill wrote: Gathering data for OSM on the ground is so much more than just the track of a road. When someone just traces the OS data with the names it superficially looks complete, but all of the additional data that a survey would bring is missing and that is where

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

It's your comments like "mindless" & "rubbish" that are putting people off contributing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

legal discussions. Sent: Tue Sep 28 20:27:45 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license Hi, Dave F. wrote: >> When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then? >> Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

it perfectly well. Kevin - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: ke...@cordina.org.uk ; Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tue Sep 28 20:19:32 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license Hi, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29 September 2010 05:12, Rob Myers wrote: > On 09/28/2010 07:38 PM, John Smith wrote: >> >> That's based on the premise that the person that added the data is >> still actively involved, and for at least 50% of the contributors this >> statement won't be true. > > At least 50% you say? > > Afte

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Hi, Dave F. wrote: When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then? Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth your time No I have not & you know that. Most of my posts have been questions which I notice you've been unable to answer. The p

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > We must really endeavour to better enable people to draw in non-OSM data at > the rendering stage so that they don't feel tempted to drop their rubbish > into OSM just so that they get a nice map rendered. Bravo. ___

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Hi, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: Which would be true if I had the technical ability to render the data. I don't. However, some kind soul has written a renderer for OSM data that does it for me. See, that's exactly the problem we're having. "There's this nice data set which I'd like rendered/

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 28/09/2010 19:32, Frederik Ramm wrote: When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then? Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth your time No I have not & you know that. Most of my posts have been questions which I notice you've been u

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 09/28/2010 07:38 PM, John Smith wrote: That's based on the premise that the person that added the data is still actively involved, and for at least 50% of the contributors this statement won't be true. At least 50% you say? After just 6 years? That's very interesting. /james-randi - Rob.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

27;t be done _in case_ it puts someone off improving it further. Kevin - Original Message - From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: Tue Sep 28 18:56:57 2010 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license To be clear, I d

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

:08 To: Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license Kevin Cordina wrote: > As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview > data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (re

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

On 29 September 2010 04:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> The latter is most definitely 'cared' for & 'maintained'. I certainly don't >> want to loose the ability to do b) nor loose existing data I've added that >> way. > > > neither do I Ok, I see my problem before, it was with the word 'import'

  1   2   >