On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Not on the map per se, but if you use the map to re-create the original
database then - at least that's what I was thinking! - you are not using
your own database but you are (again) using the database compiled by the
On 1 Mar 2009, at 11:44, Gustav Foseid wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Not on the map per se, but if you use the map to re-create the
original
database then - at least that's what I was thinking! - you are not
using
your own database but
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
CC-BY-SA says:
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a
later version of this License with the same License
80n wrote:
It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA
license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.
It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that,
in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA
license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.
It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision -
80n wrote:
It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one.
As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be
compatible.
In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet
the relicensing happened. The point is that compatible
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one.
As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be
compatible.
In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is
80n,
Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives the
contributor fewer rights. It creates a class of derivative works, called
Produced Works, that are not share alike.
In my opinion, OSM's value is almost entirely in its being a database.
If OSM were not a
Hi
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
FWIW, I do think that the ODbL Produced Work provisions _may_ need
rewording. There seems to be a myth around here that a Produced Work can be
public domain. Clearly it can't - not in the traditional sense of PD -
because of 4.7 (the Reverse Engineering provision
Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer =
to a
situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to
something where only part of it is.=20
A collective work includes the untransformed work.
A derivative work adapts it in some way.
One can claim
Hi,
Gustav Foseid wrote:
The database directive does not stop you from making a geographic database,
rendering it as a map and then releasing it under something like CC0. I am a
bit unsure what kind of restriction the database directive could possibly
have placed on that map.
Not on the map
CC-BY-SA says:
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a
later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Could we ask CC to declare that the new fabulous ODbL, after due revision
and comments by the community, can be considered a Creative Commons iCommons
licence
No, you'd never get Apple to agree.
Bye
Frederik
___
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives
the contributor fewer rights. It creates a class of derivative works,
called Produced Works, that are not share alike.
No.
80n wrote:
No. CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not
share alike. ODbL does.
No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the
five-minute argument or the full half-hour?) This is what 4.7 in ODbL is all
about. The data is still protected, if
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
No. CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not
share alike. ODbL does.
No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the
five-minute argument or the full
16 matches
Mail list logo
