Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:
> On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that
>> perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several
>> months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get th
On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Ward wrote:
>
> > _I_ think this discussion is healthy, and will give people ideas on
> > what
> > to look out for when the licence is released.
>
>
> Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that
> percei
Simon Ward wrote:
> _I_ think this discussion is healthy, and will give people ideas on
> what
> to look out for when the licence is released.
Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that
perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several
months. As
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> You have quoted me out of context. Had you not removed the next
> part of
> the sentence, people would have known that I was just taking the, er,
> mickey ;-)
And to think that I was, as ever, deadly serious. Anyway, enough
frivolity, I've got some nodes to move.
cheer
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> If sets up his local copy of Potlach (the tool of
>> choice for such operations!) and randomly moves 1.000 Central London
>> nodes
>
> Could I point out that Potlatch doesn't let you select more than one
> object at once so, actually, JOSM would be the tool of ch
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If sets up his local copy of Potlach (the tool of
> choice for such operations!) and randomly moves 1.000 Central London
> nodes
Could I point out that Potlatch doesn't let you select more than one
object at once so, actually, JOSM would be the tool of choice.
Could I al
Dair Grant wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>>> b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database
>>> offered
>>>under this Licence, including any additional Data, that make
>>> up all the
>>>differences between the Database and the Derivative Database.
>
> Assuming I
>
> I'm tempted to say that if the data base is modified using some kind of
> original data input - from your GPS, from your company archives, from
> your Grandma's local knowledge - then ist has to be shared; if, on the
> other hand, you only apply algorithms or noise to it, then keep it an
> jus
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 05:44:23PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > You don’t know what use something is until someone does something
> > unexpected with it, and then you find that it is useful after all.
>
> That's right, while we're at it why don't we require that everyone who
> uses OSM data al
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Apart from this being pretty much useless to anybody
>
> You don’t know what use something is until someone does something
> unexpected with it, and then you find that it is useful after all.
That's right,
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Apart from this being pretty much useless to anybody
You don’t know what use something is until someone does something
unexpected with it, and then you find that it is useful after all.
A lot of free software was created to scratch
Hi,
Dair Grant wrote:
> Perhaps it's not worth treating the "translating the Database to a
> less-expressive form" case as different to any other modification case.
>
> But it does seem a bit like jumping through hoops, when it would be simpler
> to say "I truncated all coordinates to 4 decimal p
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876
> messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before.
Me too. ;-)
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
> Sent: 11 October 2008 09:50
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
>
> On Sat, Oct 11,
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 07:39:24AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> Btw, can someone provide a link for a primer to the requirements for
> 'DSFG-compliance'
[DFSG]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[FAQ]: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Simon
--
A complex system that work
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:17:50AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has
> > already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests
> > used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>
> Could I ple
or
'DSFG-compliance'
Thanks,
Peter
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
> Sent: 11 October 2008 00:18
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OS
Hi,
80n wrote:
> If someone forks the project then the fork should be able to
> operate on exactly the same basis as the original project.
On closer inspection, this will never be possible. If you fork OSM,
under the old OR new license, you will not take the data from the
individual contributo
Simon Ward wrote:
> It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has
> already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests
> used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be
publ
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:52:35PM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
> This is one reason why I find generally similar terms for the database
> and its contents, rather than one rule for one, and a different rule for
> the other, easier to comprehend and more acceptable. That is, you can
> freely use the d
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 08:38:56PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 80n wrote:
> > There's no dispensation in the proposed license for a "Master"
> > database.
>
> But there is a distinction between a "database" and "data". I always
> thought that what I collect with my GPS is just "data", and only
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 04:21:22PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like "within a reasonable
> time frame" to alleviate the problem for people who try to process
> "current" data.
Either providing the data at the same time, or a written offer to
provide
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:23:45PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some
> kind of doomsday scenario you would be stranded with only the derived
> product and no access to the real thing, that's why he wants the derived
> product acces
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Dair Grant wrote:
> Simon Ward wrote:
>
> > I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their
> > source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people.
> ...
> > The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere
>
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> > 2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like "within a reasonable
> > time frame" to alleviate the problem for people who try to process
> > "current" data.
>
> It only says "you must also
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like "within a reasonable
> time frame" to alleviate the problem for people who try to process
> "current" data.
It only says "you must also _offer_ to recipients" (my emphasis), not
"you must provide in case anyone wants it" - i
Hi,
On 10.10.2008, at 13:23, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[what the current ODL draft says]
> It looks pretty unambiguous to me that the PostGIS version _would_
> be classed as a derivative database ("includes modifying the
> Database as may be technically necessary to use it in a different
>
Mikel Maron wrote:
--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Simon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
format.
Hi,
> If the translation doesn't improve the OSM data, and you get the source
> planet dump with the translation, what would you do with the translation
> that you couldn't do better with the planet dump?
I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some
kind of doomsday scena
Simon Ward wrote:
> I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their
> source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people.
...
> The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere
> translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived
> da
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:05:23PM -0700, Mikel Maron wrote:
> If this were about code, the belief would be that every time someone compiled
> that code into running software, that binary would need to be freely
> available. Clearly not the reasonable thing for software. But you would have
> thi
--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Simon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
format. I believe that PostG
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:09:09AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Simon Ward wrote:
> > Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
> > someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
> > without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a diff
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 07:26:05AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> I can think of three types of material changes that we would want
> contributed back to OSM:
>
> [1] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the accuracy of a Feature
> geometry.
> [2] Modifications that improve (not degrade)
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
> Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
> someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
> without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
> format. I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely availa
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:48:07AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> 1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the
> martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the
> dataset has merely been processed into a different format.
Merely processing into a diffe
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
> Sent: 09 October 2008 00:43
> To: Iván Sánchez Ortega
> Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
>
> Hi,
>
> Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> > Namely, by spending that time, IIRC, you have c
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> Namely, by spending that time, IIRC, you have created a derived DB (you have
> changed the format of the data). You have to let people extract data from
> *that* DB.
So OpenStreetMap would really have to publish psql dumps of the data
structure created by osm2p
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
> I think talking about releasing to the public vs non-public is limiting,
> and makes it sound like the derived DB should only be disclosed if the
> product is available to all.
>
> It should be: Whoever the product is released to should be able to get
> access to the deri
El Jueves, 9 de Octubre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió:
> Hi,
>
> Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> >> *or* provide documentation that
> >> explains how you created the database using publicly available tools
> >> from publicly available sources.
> >
> > -1, redundant.
> >
> > If you *just* used public
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
>> *or* provide documentation that
>> explains how you created the database using publicly available tools
>> from publicly available sources.
>
> -1, redundant.
>
> If you *just* used publicly available sources, other users can already
> extract
> data from tho
El Jueves, 9 de Octubre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió:
> Maybe the license needs some provision that says you *either* have to
> make your derived database public
-1, counterproductive.
Think DFSG, the dissident test.
> *or* provide documentation that
> explains how you created the database u
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 12:53:38AM +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> > I think we want someone who derives a better/new DB from OSM data to make
> > that available if they use that data for publically available product.
>
> *If* someone derives a DB, and they make a *publicly* available product
Hi,
> "Database" – A collection of Data arranged in a systematic or methodical way
> and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the
> terms of this Licence. This includes the Database as protected by Database
> Rights or by copyright and neighbouring rights law.
>
>
El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió:
> Hi,
>
> Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> > There is no explicit need for giving out database dumps (though giving
> > out DB dumps complies with the license too).
>
> What about printouts ,-)?
The database directive says:
"
"Database" – A
El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Tim Waters (chippy) escribió:
> You would be required to release the data, even if you didn't want to.
Not really. Doing so would make the license fail two of the DFSG tests, and I
think that would be a Very Bad Thing(tm).
First, have a look here:
http://en.w
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> There is no explicit need for giving out database dumps (though giving out DB
> dumps complies with the license too).
What about printouts ,-)?
Or the broader question: Say my database is in a complex and obscure
format internally and I offer a web service base
El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Tim Waters (chippy) escribió:
> With the new licence - any derivative work produced would require that
> the data used to create it is distributed.
Not really. You only have to let people "Extract" and "Re-Use" the data.
I think that the wording of the license
On 10/8/08, Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Sunburned Surveyor escribió:
> > What are you required to release?
>
>
> *Nothing*.
>
> Please keep in mind that the ODbL (or CC-by-sa, for that matter) does not
> *require* you to release anything.
Interesting post Peter, this has clarified something for me - please
correct me if I'm wrong.
With the new licence - any derivative work produced would require that
the data used to create it is distributed. Also, any derivative work
has to include two notices, 1) saying that it is using OSM data,
El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Sunburned Surveyor escribió:
[...]
> You take OSM data and modify the feature geometries using data you
> collected in the field. [...] (For example: You add Road
> Speed Limit attributes to all of the road segments in the dataset).
>
> What are you required to r
Fantastic Peter, can't wait for your input.
Best
Steve
On 27 Sep 2008, at 07:12, Peter Miller wrote:
>
> Let me answer from the perspective of the new licence that is in
> preparation.
>
> My company intends to charge for services using OSM data, not traffic
> related, but our situations are si
Let me answer from the perspective of the new licence that is in
preparation.
My company intends to charge for services using OSM data, not traffic
related, but our situations are similar from a legal perspective.
We are currently reviewing the new proposed OSM licence in draft form and my
compa
53 matches
Mail list logo
