On 2 February 2012 15:11, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
andrzej zaborowski schrieb:
Yes, of course, I think it is Mike DuPont who said give away. But
obviously we're talking about the grant of rights.
Yes, every open soruce license is a grant of rights, as that's the basic
definition
andrzej zaborowski schrieb:
Assignment of your rights requires a written agreement in some
jurisdictions so there's no talk of that. Mozilla, Facebook, etc, as
you say, require a grant of the right to sublicense and other rights.
No, Mozilla has no sublicense requirement. And Facebook is
andrzej zaborowski schrieb:
I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had
not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't
contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned projects.
Interesting to see Mozilla mentioned here as clearly every
Mike Dupont schrieb:
This is my understanding. all of my edits belong to me, they are my
contributions that I then willingly share with others.
This is exactly what the CTs say. You sign there that you own your edit
and grant the OSMF to sub-license it if needed and under well-defined terms.
Hi Robert,
On 31 January 2012 21:53, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
andrzej zaborowski schrieb:
I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had
not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't
contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned
On 29/01/12 23:11, Mike Dupont wrote:
My understanding of copyleft is the idea that people who own the
rights to their own work license it freely.
They do so in free recognition that their contingent power should not
constrain the fundamental freedom of others. That is, they recognise the
Am 28.01.2012 08:47, schrieb Mike Dupont:
then I determined that I will not be able to accept the terms because
someone, who is a Hasardeur in my humble opinion, decided to break
compatiblity with the existing license and then, break from the idea
that I own my data and ask me to hand over
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
demotivated by the data loss. but filling in gaps is really much
quicker done than starting from scratch.
+1, at least there already are tags for most things, comfortable
editors and lots of experienced mappers ;-)
cheers,
Martin
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
I sort-of feel responsible for my areas of the map, but I wouldn't go
so far as to call it my data. I contribute to this map, because I want
free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into
the hands of the community of
I am going to explain my viewpoint on this.
My understanding of copyleft is the idea that people who own the
rights to their own work license it freely.
Other people who license that work via copyleft are then allowed to
create derived works, and adding in value create new works that are
again
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Mike Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I am just explaining the legal basis behind copyright and copyleft :
Copyright says that I own all my work and you have no right to copy
it, copyleft says you are allowed to copy it under certain conditions
That is an excellent question Stefan d. k., very good. Also
considering that the previous stance was that wikipedia should not be
imported at all because it is mostly derived from non free sources.
Also I wonder why this mail is being sent to talk, about licensing,
should be on legal anyway?
mike
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/27/2012 6:48 PM, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hi Mike and Graham,
We should not assume that contributors' acceptance of the new licence
means that they are particularly in favour of it - they may have just
accepted
13 matches
Mail list logo
