On 28/02/2009, at 3:38 PM, Jim Croft wrote:
Putting words into their mouths, I think the argument would be that
the decision-making involved in selection, storage, management and
display of these fact is indeed a creative act, even though the facts
themselves aren't. A blank screen magically
James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote on 03/03/2009 12:46:58 PM:
Copying someone's beautifully drawn map of Sydney is obviously not
allowed. However the location of the Sydney Opera House is a fact and
so not copyrightable, and the location and name of Paramatta Road, and
so on. While I can't
What's the purpose of S5.0 (disclaimer of moral rights), especially
since the plain meaning of that section appears to differ from the
'attribution' element of the current license (not that I think
attribution is a great idea with so many contributors, but some
bulk-data donors include attribution
I started reading the ODbL licence but in the preamble it stated that this
licence only covers the database itself and not
the contents of the database.
I stopped reading at this point since I am only interested in the contents
of the database and have minimal interest is the database itself.
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and
supporting the
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, andrzej zaborowski escribió:
What I don't understand very clearly (and would appreciate a
clarification) is the license says that ODbL applies to the database
and not to the data in it, and that data in one databse can be covered
by multiple licenses. What
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Grant Slater wrote:
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
The working group have put much effort in to
On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote:
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the
new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
Thank you for your work to date;
The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the wiki
history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that review has been
made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then no edits for a month).
I've grabbed a copy of that page and will insert the review comments
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes:
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
I am sure that this is going to be fun. Legal
1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to
find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did
the upload of their data just have to tick I agree on their behalf
when they next log-in after the change?
2: For imported datasets where we checked
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:05, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes:
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the
new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:40, OJ W wrote:
1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to
find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did
the upload of their data just have to tick I agree on their behalf
when they next log-in after the change?
2: For
Given that the purpose of this license is to allow use, copying,
modifying, and redistribution, why is it phrased as only allowing you
to Use the database, and then redefining Use in a different section to
mean copying, modifying, and redistribution?
Shouldn't the first paragraph of S3.1 be
Add this question/point to the wiki!
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible share-alike
licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works
derived from more than one already existing free work.
While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or
BSD-like license, I would have at least
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible share-alike
licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works
derived from more than one already existing free work.
While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or
BSD-like
Hi,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
What license would our data be under? Would it
be under no license because it's factual data that cannot be
copyrighted?
Grant wrote:
OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the Factual Information
License
Important news from legal-talk
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009
From: Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
The OSMF License
On 28/02/2009, at 12:17 PM, Jim Croft wrote:
Out of curiosity, would one of the Creative Commons
(http://creativecommons.org/) licenses be able to provide
thefunctionality and the flexibility we might need?
Basically, no - what is why the Open Database Licence is being worked
on.
interesting...
In another life (the one that pays the bills) I work with a team,
several in fact, that collects and manages biodiversity 'facts'
(hundreds of millions of them: this species of plant or animal was
found here, then, etc. - hence the lurking fascination with OSM).
This large national
21 matches
Mail list logo
