Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-14 Thread Ed Avis
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: And of course we are using the same rules for taking and giving, or? Same amounts of data we consider non-copyrightable and keep therefore in the database can be taken out from the new ODbl-OSM database as if they were PD? ODbL's concept if you take a lot of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-14 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, Richard Weait wrote: Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or database right? Any edit made by a robot - e.g. one that fixes spelling mistakes - certainly qualifies for never be considered for

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-14 Thread Francis Davey
On 14 October 2010 09:07, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: I've not been following the detail of this discussion. One of my worries is that a lot of things are said - maybe off-hand - that turn into assumptions that feed into later discussion. Since this is an area of law

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-14 Thread Rob Myers
On 10/14/2010 07:42 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Richard Weait wrote: Is there some OSM contribution or edit that is so mechanical and/or so insignificant that it need never be considered for copyright or database right? Any edit made by a robot - e.g. one that fixes spelling mistakes -

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-13 Thread Richard Weait
-talk] legal FAQ license reading the legal FAQ for the license change: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ there is a paragraph that looks strange to me: ... - we may take the view that those who have made small contributions, but cannot be contacted, would relicence

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-13 Thread Anthony
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: For example, a 'bot that does nothing but fix spelling in keys, changes Amenity to amenity, but the 'bot does not answer the mandatory relicensing question.  Should we revert their changes back to Amenity? As another

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-13 Thread Jukka Rahkonen
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: I think you have understood this all right. In my eyes there's a wide band between clearly non-copyrightable edits on one side (which we could legally keep in OSM even if the person who added them said no - but we're unlikely to exercise that right) and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-13 Thread Frederik Ramm
Jukka, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: And of course we are using the same rules for taking and giving, or? Same amounts of data we consider non-copyrightable and keep therefore in the database can be taken out from the new ODbl-OSM database as if they were PD? And even store masses of separate extracts

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-13 Thread Frederik Ramm
Andrzej, andrzej zaborowski wrote: You may also want to take into account the automatic database rights in some users' contributions (even if not copyrightable), which iirc are not disclaimed by CC-By-SA 2 unported. If we assume there to be such rights (and there might well be!), would this

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-13 Thread David Groom
- Original Message - From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal FAQ license

2010-10-13 Thread Anthony
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If one million users each make a non-copyrightable contribution to OSM under CC-BY-SA then I can take those one million contributions and use them in any way I want because if they are not copyrightable then CC-BY-SA