On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> No, it doesn't. CC-BY-NC-SA doesn't preserve the freedom to redistribute
> commercially. The addition of two words fix the ambiguity:
But you can bet that people will make the opposing argument: you can
still redistribute it. You just ca
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> As I said: You could drop the reverse engineering clause for certain
> share-alike licenses only, thus making reverse-engineering into a
> share-alike form possible but that would mean that the best you get with
> your OMR is a CC-BY-SA or GF
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
> I would be reluctant to name them. Assuming the data remains bound by
> some form of share-alike, in 50 years time, OSM or OSM derivatives is
> going to be the only database anyone ever uses for storing and
> retrieving public global mapping data. At that point, we
On 08/03/09 00:23, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I agree with both points, but I would like to try and be pragmatic:
> Don't throw out the reverse engineering clause; just add a clause that
> explicitly permits releasing Produced Works under a number of named
> share-alike licenses.
I would be reluctant
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Nic Roets wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller wrote:
>
>>
>> > The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for
>> > CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole.
>>
>> If you want to close the loopho
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller wrote:
>
> > The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for
> > CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole.
>
> If you want to close the loophole, you will need to get everyone to
> accept the license contr
80n schrieb:
> The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for
> CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole.
If you want to close the loophole, you will need to get everyone to
accept the license contract before letting them look at the map.
That
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 13:00 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If someone really wants to jump through these
> hoops to get it done, let him do it. I think this will be a niche
> application and, if at all, only used very seldom.
>
> And if we later find that someone is really being a thorn in our si
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 80n wrote:
> > Obviously you can create an image and license it as a Produced Work.
> > Also fairly obviously you claim that a vector image (eg SVG) is a
> Produced Work,
> > even if it contains most of planet.xml in unmodified form.
Hi,
80n wrote:
> Obviously you can create an image and license it as a Produced Work.
> Also fairly obviously you claim that a vector image (eg SVG) is a Produced
> Work,
> even if it contains most of planet.xml in unmodified form.
Not sure here. You can of course produce a Derivative Database
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> 2009/3/8 Andy Allan :
> > On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham >> gm...@gerv.net> wrote:
> >>> b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a
> >>> massive, sustained, con
2009/3/8 Andy Allan :
> On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham > gm...@gerv.net> wrote:
>>> b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a
>>> massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort
>>
>> unless they create SVG files t
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 01:23:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I agree with both points, but I would like to try and be pragmatic:
> Don't throw out the reverse engineering clause; just add a clause that
> explicitly permits releasing Produced Works under a number of named
> share-alike licens
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
> I think without the reverse engineering clause, you may as well make
> it PD in the first place..
As I said: You could drop the reverse engineering clause for certain
share-alike licenses only, thus making reverse-engineering into a
share-alike form possible but that w
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
> So what can be done? I agree that reverse engineering is a risk. Life is
> not perfect. But still, my suggestion is that we should abandon the idea
> of trying to prevent reverse engineering, for the following reasons:
>
> a) GPL and CC-BY-SA compatibility of produc
On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham gm...@gerv.net> wrote:
>> b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a
>> massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort
>
> unless they create SVG files that just happen to contain the
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a
> massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort
unless they create SVG files that just happen to contain the same data
as OSM files and we add a loophole that says SVG fil
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> a) GPL and CC-BY-SA compatibility of produced works is more important.
>
Agreed, but...
>
> b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, either they need a
> massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort, or their map will
> b
The question has been raised in these discussions about the ODbL's
reverse-engineering provisions, and their compatibility or otherwise
with share-alike licenses. Here is my analysis and suggestions.
1) The ODbL wishes to prevent people regenerating the Database from
Produced Works.
ODbL secti
19 matches
Mail list logo
