2014-11-02 23:11 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share
alike to show for
Actually the Italian Government has designed their open data license (IODL)
to be compatible with OdbL:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a
commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a
licensing issue.
If we add up the cost of all the time company representatives have
spent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/11/14 02:11 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM
share alike to show for,
Then clearly OMS should have stuck with BY-SA for the database, as
that did gain third party data releases.
but
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:02:27PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that
was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike
licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the
share-alike
The ODbL that we now use for OSM data technically only applies to the
database, and not to individual contents contained within it. For
that, the ODbL says you need a separate licence [1]. I was under the
impression that for OSM's data this licence was the ODC's Database
Contents Licence (DbCL)
On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ...
What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper
supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing of
OpenStreetMap data.
Does it really deserve
2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk:
What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin
doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though:
Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy
and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and
I am unpaid nobody in the context of last two emails on this thread. In my
opinion, it sure would be nice for users (not contributors alone) if
there was lot more clarity. I imagine, from my point of view, that
contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial
users if the
2014-10-29 13:47 GMT+01:00 Sachin Dole sd...@genvega.com:
... if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, ..., that contributors and
other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license
is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving
derivative or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature
that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share
alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29/10/14 04:32 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ...
What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a
paper supporting their
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes:
The ODbL definition of database implicitly contains a definition of
contents, namely the things that are arranged in a systematic etc
way. What the contents are will depend on the terms of OSMF's
licence,
I think the 'contents' must depend on the nature of the
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes:
But it's possible
that the 'contents', which are covered by the DbCL rather than the ODbL, might
be something meaningful.
Yes, indeed. And who knows?
If I understand you rightly, you're saying that the 'contents' referred to here
is not meant to be something
2011/5/8 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
If I understand you rightly, you're saying that the 'contents' referred to
here
is not meant to be something meaningful in the context of OSM, but rather a
catch-all term for whatever a court might find to be 'database contents' in
the
future.
H,
On 5 May 2011 15:40, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
From a user's point of view, a safe strategy is to assume that 'contents' is
empty and that everything in the map is licensed under ODbL. But it's
possible
that the 'contents', which are covered by the DbCL rather than the ODbL, might
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes:
As I hope I've clarified, I don't think it makes sense to ask whether
something is considered to be pure 'contents'. The two questions
are: (i) what is covered by the contributor terms (everything
uploaded) and (ii) what does the ODbL licence (the arrangement of
The plan to change the licence is to use ODbL for the 'database' and DbCL for
the
'database contents'. Are these 'contents' the same as the 'Your Contents'
referred to by the CTs - or is that a different kind of contents?
Don't the CTs also need to assign rights over 'Your Database' as well as
On 27 April 2011 09:26, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
The plan to change the licence is to use ODbL for the 'database' and DbCL for
the
'database contents'. Are these 'contents' the same as the 'Your Contents'
referred to by the CTs - or is that a different kind of contents?
They are
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes:
Put more simply Your Contents is anything you upload.
contents in the ODbL has a very different sense.
Thanks for clarifying. I think it's unfortunate that the same word was used
for both.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
19 matches
Mail list logo
