I counted the votes for PD license so far. Sorry, if I have missed
anyone!!
Jordan S Hatcher: PDDL
Joseph Gentle: Wikipedia PD / PDDL
Nic Roets: Wikipedia PD
Sebastian Spaeth: Wikipedia PD
Rob Myers: CC Zero (Wikipedia PD)
Gustav Foseid: CC Zero / Wikipedia PD
According to this, Wikipedia style
I'm happy with that. Thankyou :)
-J
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I counted the votes for PD license so far. Sorry, if I have missed
anyone!!
Jordan S Hatcher: PDDL
Joseph Gentle: Wikipedia PD / PDDL
Nic Roets: Wikipedia PD
Sebastian Spaeth:
I'm happy with wikipedia PD as well.
The Sunburned Surveyor
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy with that. Thankyou :)
-J
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I counted the votes for PD license so far. Sorry,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we get a vague show of hands about what people think of this? I
+1 for the wikipedia version. http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Wikipedia version is the best current PD Dedication but I really
would recommend waiting on CC Zero.
CC Zero explicitly mentions database rights, which I think is a good thing,
but I would be ahppy with the Wikipedia
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if
we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments.
I don't think its that big a deal - we could just say if you edit a
node, your edits are also under the same PD license as the node is
currently under or something.
Joseph Gentle wrote:
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if
we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments.
Yeah you will - a single PD disclaimer of rights (PDDL, CC0,
Wikipedia-like, WTFPL, doesn't really matter), with an
attribution/disclaimer
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote:
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if
we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments.
Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don’t relicense
stuff (at least not without much
Exactly. I wouldn't like to see nodes with a license tag. Once again, it
over-complicates things. Or do you want people asking, which PD data can
they use and which they cannot??
Importing PD data (such as TIGER) into OSM/PD isn't a problem. PD is PD.
I vote for the Wikipedia PD style of public
Joseph Gentle wrote:
Can we get a vague show of hands about what people think of this? I
don't think its worth discussing for more than a day or so. If this
issue is too contentious, we can let contributors decide with an
option on their user page or something.
+1 wikipedia version
If you
I have no problem avoiding the moral rights quagmire. I think
simplicity is one of the reasons to move to PD in the first place.
I don't think it would be a problem to use the wikipedia public domain
license now, and then consider a future move to something like the CC
Zero.
I would strongly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
Nothing is ever as simple as you hope. :]
Joseph wrote: I don't think its that big a deal - we could just say
if you edit a
node, your edits are also under the same PD license as the node is
currently under or
Back to square 1. :]
Is public domain really this hard?
The Sunburned Surveyor
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
Nothing is ever as simple as you hope. :]
Joseph wrote: I don't
Frederik Ramm wrote:
The more complex thing is that some jurisdictions make it really
difficult for you to give away your rights so generously.
Which is a splendid reason to use WTFPL, reproduced here in its
entirety:
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
Perhaps PD is not as simple as it seems at first sight.
The thing that is simple about PD is what contributors want - they
simply want to make the data available to anyone, forever, without
Sorry, I've been busy writing up research proposals and whatnot. I'm
starting a phd next year (woohoo!).
I don't like the standard creative commons PD license. Their CC-zero
license is ok, but not finished. Here's the wikipedia license from
earlier in the thread:
I, the copyright holder of this
Hi,
Joseph Gentle wrote:
However, I'm a bit nervous about the ODC PD license abandoning the
publisher's moral rights. That means I can legally come along and say
that I drew all the maps myself; or I could draw offensive pictures
out of your roads and say that was you. I don't mind if people
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I take back what I previously said to 80n about all PD advocates
being on the same page ;-)
We're very close, and we don't have to agree. Data published with free
non-viral licenses can coexist peacefully. We're really
Hi,
Joseph Gentle wrote:
I don't understand the use case for people passing off my work as
their own.
I don't either. But trying to force *anything* onto your users means
that you cannot let go of the data - you're then automatically entering
this whole license swamp because where you make
Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats not true. I don't think the US Government has waived their moral
rights regarding the TIGER data. As I understand it, placing work in
the public domain does not automatically waive your moral rights on
the work.
Moral rights are a very murky,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make
sense
to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be
confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all
I think
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Jordan S Hatcher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On picking a PD dedication/licence:
On 16 Oct 2008, at 20:08, Kari Pihkala wrote:
I created a wiki page for the public domain map, have a look at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Public_Domain_Map . There
Hi,
80n wrote:
Perhaps PD is not as simple as it seems at first sight.
The thing that is simple about PD is what contributors want - they
simply want to make the data available to anyone, forever, without
restrictions of any kind, full stop. You will not find a single use case
where one PD
Perhaps PD is not as simple as it seems at first sight.
True. But its got to be simpler than viral share-alike. :]
The Sunburned Surveyor
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:12 PM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Jordan S Hatcher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On picking a PD
On 15 Oct 2008, at 14:04, John Wilbanks wrote:
Jordan Hatcher is the author of the Public Domain Dedication
License by
the way, not CC. However, the PDDL is the only license that SC
currently
certifies as compliant with the protocol - CC Zero isn't there yet.
Yep!
BTW, I have changed
Don't set up too much of your own structure just yet, because it is very
well possible that it makes sense to fly under the flag
OpenStreetMap/PD once things are a bit clearer, but you cannot
possibly expect many from OSM to endorse the thing when so little is
clear about it... personally, I
What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense
to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be
confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all
I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g.
deciding about tags,
I created a wiki page for the public domain map, have a look at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Public_Domain_Map . There is also a
link from the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License to
the new page.
I listed all public domain licenses - we need to decide which one to
Hi,
Joseph Gentle wrote:
I don't think it matters much where our mailing list is hosted. A
google group would be fine
I for one will certainly not join a Google list, I don't know if I'm
just picky or if others feel the same - Google lists just provide an
incentive for ever more people to
I was looking at the OSGeo data committee wondering where their data
was as they seem to have the same goals as us.
I don't think picking the right PD license will be a particularly
large hurdle. It is certainly less complicated than selecting a
share-alike license :) The wikipedia pd license
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Sunburned Surveyor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose there is the Public Domain Dedication from the Creative
Commons that we could use as well, although that will have to be
discussed among the participants. Or the Open Data Commons Public
Domain Dedication
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My thinking as well, just needs careful consideration of viral
effects, i.e. if you want to be totally safe then you can only ever
collect data before it is assimilated into the OSM pool, and after
that it is completely
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the idea that everything only touched by PD contributors is PD
data is easily good enough. It would be a tough sell to say that
because your road is next to my road, I have intellectual property
rights over the
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I'm the person who started the all my contributions are PD
thing on the Wiki
Seems I was wrong here, Wiki history lists RichardF as the inventor and
myself as a mere follower a few weeks later! Well then, I guess, PD is
not so great after all ;-)
Bye
Frederik
--
spaetz wrote:
check the wiki, there are a few people that have the I release my
data as PD template on their user pages. I would expect the biggest
problem is that existing data is likely to be tainted by the OSM
license if anybody not on that list ever modified it
significantly
I've had some recent discussions with Joseph Gentle and Kari Pihkala
about the desire to maintain a clean repository of data collected
for OSM that would be released in the public domain before being
imported into OSM. This would allow anyone to use the data without
having to worry about the OSM
The folks at Creative Commons and Science Commons would be happy to help
out in the creation of a public domain repository. My opinions on the
difficulties of using copyleftish licenses on data are well known and
I won't rehash them here :-)
jtw
I've had some recent discussions with Joseph
37 matches
Mail list logo
