On 14/04/2011, at 6:57 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
This method seems a much more satisfactory way of doing things to me
-- assuming it could work legally (IANAL). We would still have the
flexibility to re-license if we needed to without individual mappers
being able to hold their data
On 14/04/2011, at 8:06 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
* If so, how do we know what data must be removed in a switch to ODbL?
That clause doesn't appear to put any obligation on you to remove
data. All it requires of you is that
On 13 April 2011 23:06, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
Clause 2 is a grant for certain rights. From previous discussion here,
can I assume that I can agree if I'm not the copyright holder, and
that I only grant the rights I can under the licence I received the
data under?
That depends
On 14 April 2011 08:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
If I'm reading what Francis has written correctly, this would seem to
be a very real problem with CT 2.2.4, which would prevent us using
almost any source which wasn't PD or for which the contributor didn't
On 14 April 2011 09:34, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
Strictly speaking, you can make use of them, but contributors are (i) in
breach of contract in contributing that material and (ii) may (in some
circumstances) infringe copyright by authorising OSMF to do acts which are
infringements
On 14 April 2011 09:57, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
Has this option been considered by OSMF and/or LWG?
It, or something like it, has been mooted from time to time. There's no
reason why it could not be made to work legally.
Two issues might arise:
(1)
- Original Message -
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4
On 13 April 2011 23:06, Francis
Hi,
On 04/14/2011 09:54 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
If I'm reading what Francis has written correctly, this would seem to
be a very real problem with CT 2.2.4, which would prevent us using
almost any source which wasn't PD or for which the contributor didn't
own the copyright. In
On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
Hi all,
After looking at the new CTs, I'm still a bit confused about whether I can
agree or not and what a few things actually mean. I was wondering if someone
could enlighten me.
Answers are my best (informal) guess -
9 matches
Mail list logo
