> What I meant by legal assessment is that I would like to know what OSMF's
> layers
> think of this. I would assume that the OSMF has some sort of legal
> department,
> like the people who have drafted some of the fundamental legal documents
> (like
> Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Contributor
Hello Kathleen,
thank you for your clarifications.
On 09/23/2020 at 02:42 PM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
GITNE,
I don't know what distinction you are drawing between opinion and legal
assessment. I cannot give you legal advice as I am not your lawyer, but my legal
opinion, based on the
Hello Christoph,
On 09/23/2020 at 01:27 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Wednesday 23 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset
discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of
the geodatabase (at least for
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:49 AM GITNE wrote:
> On 09/23/2020 at 02:19 AM Clifford Snow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:43 PM GITNE mailto:gi...@gmx.de>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello OSMF Legal Team,
> >
> > due to a quite troubling revelation by @SomeoneElse that changeset
>
>
>
> why not remove “geo-database of the”? If someone added the geo-database,
> maybe they wanted to exclude other databases or parts of the project? Are
> there terms for diary posts? Are diary posts distributed under the ODbL?
>
> Well, updating the Contributor Terms would be an enormous
sent from a phone
> On 23. Sep 2020, at 14:43, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk
> wrote:
> So if changeset comments did not count as part of the geo-database, OSM would
> not have rights to use them, which would be contrary to the purposes of the
> Contributor Terms.
looking at the terms, to my
On 22/09/2020 17.43, GITNE wrote:
As far as I can tell no document covers changeset comments either
explicitly nor implicitly. The Contributor Terms state that
“…contributing data and/or any other content (collectively,
“Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the
Sep 23, 2020, 15:16 by gi...@gmx.de:
> On 09/23/2020 at 01:16 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23.09.20 12:34, GITNE wrote:
>>
>>> (for profit) which presumably is not covered either by the ODbL
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that the data is covered by ODbL, then "These rights explicitly
>> include
Hello Frederik,
On 09/23/2020 at 01:16 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 23.09.20 12:34, GITNE wrote:
The issue is not availability of the data but Slack *republishing*
content
Surely Slack is doing that not out of their own decision, but because
someone has instructed them (or their web
GITNE,
I don't know what distinction you are drawing between opinion and legal
assessment. I cannot give you legal advice as I am not your lawyer, but my
legal opinion, based on the terms of the Contributor Agreement, is that
changeset comments are part of OSM's geo-database. Note that the terms
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:19 PM Andy Townsend wrote:
> For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a
> "feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion
> comments shortly after they are added. There are lots of other ways of
> getting at that data as well
Sep 23, 2020, 12:18 by ajt1...@gmail.com:
> On 23/09/2020 08:49, GITNE wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific link
>> or
>> something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an
>> automated
>> feed which pulls changesets comments
Hi GITNE,
if you feel that you have let your manners slip in changeset comments in
the past, then just adding an apology (instead of starting a discussion
about whether it is legal to republish your disrespectful comments) is
always an option!
On Wednesday 23 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset
> discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of
> the geodatabase (at least for me), but for changeset comments it
> seems the situation isn't so
Hi,
On 23.09.20 12:34, GITNE wrote:
> The issue is not availability of the data but Slack *republishing*
> content
Surely Slack is doing that not out of their own decision, but because
someone has instructed them (or their web service) to do so?
> (for profit) which presumably is not covered
Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 12:25 Uhr schrieb GITNE :
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/58/OSM_DB_Schema_2016-12-13.svg
>
Martin, please correct me if I am wrong but the database represented by the
> schema you have pointed to is not what is actually publicly available,
> that is
>
On 09/23/2020 at 12:18 PM Andy Townsend wrote:
On 23/09/2020 08:49, GITNE wrote:
Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific link or
something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an automated
feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and
On 09/23/2020 at 11:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann
mailto:chris_horm...@gmx.de>>:
... That changeset data
is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an
argument against it being covered by the
On 23/09/2020 08:49, GITNE wrote:
Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific
link or
something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an
automated
feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on
one of
their channels.
For
Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <
chris_horm...@gmx.de>:
> ... That changeset data
> is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an
> argument against it being covered by the contributor terms. Frequent
> discussion in the OSM community that
On Wednesday 23 September 2020, GITNE wrote:
> [...] However, I am unsure
> whether this your opinion or legal assessment? Because a legal
> assessment is actually what I would like to know.
You will only ever get opinions here (often colored by interests and
what people want to be true) and
On 09/23/2020 at 03:45 AM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
Hi GITNE,
Can you also specify what you think the problem is?
I am not sure if I can be more specific. So, I am just going to reword what I
have written so that perhaps then things become clearer. In my understanding the
Contributor
On 09/23/2020 at 02:19 AM Clifford Snow wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:43 PM GITNE mailto:gi...@gmx.de>>
wrote:
Hello OSMF Legal Team,
due to a quite troubling revelation by @SomeoneElse that changeset comments
are
automatically republished by the third party private company
23 matches
Mail list logo
