Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Therefore distributing a Produced Work as public domain, with no
attribution requirement, does _not_ fulfil your obligation to "include a
notice... reasonably calculated to make any Person... aware". So you
can't do it. The most permissive licence which may be used
On 7 June 2010 15:52, Peter Miller wrote:
> Are the license working group or the foundation researching this for us?
They are now. I took the time to e-mail the Licence Working Group
about this. Part of the initial response was:
"However, we'll individually read the documents during this week a
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
> under CC-BY. I quote:
>
>>This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
>>content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under
..."Ed Avis wrote on 08/06/2010 12:40:
> Ian Spencer writes:
>
>
This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
>
>> It
Ian Spencer writes:
>>>This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
>>>content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any
>>>Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
>It doesn't give explicit permission to distribute under CC-BY, (it
>actually g
>
>>
>> On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute
>> their data
>> under CC-BY. I quote:
>>
>>> This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons
>>> licensed
>>> content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under
>>> any Creative
>>> Commons At
>
> On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
> under CC-BY. I quote:
>
>
>> This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
>> content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any
>> Creative
>> Commons Attribution
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
under CC-BY. I quote:
>This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
>content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative
>Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
This see
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
> wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
>
>
>> Maybe we should also start a
>> campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as
>> CC-By...
>>
> Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without
> getting one thi
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
wrote:
[...snip...]
> Maybe we should also start a
> campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as
> CC-By...
Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without
getting one thing clear. The OS OpenData licens
On 7 June 2010 16:39, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it
>> might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that
>> Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Even if that were the case as you say, OSM users under ODbL would still
> be granted permission to extract a non-substantial amount of data and
> use that without attribution. Does the OS's attribution requirement also
> make an exemption for non-substantial amounts, or do we
Richard,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it
> might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that
> Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public
> domain - which would not require recipients of
Peter Miller wrote:
> I note that the OS data is CCBY not CCBYSA which may be relevant to
> the issue, I don't know. I have also noted that the government
> clearly wants the data to be used and is unlikely to sue, however the
> Foundation have stated that they will remove all data that is
> derive
On 7 Jun 2010, at 14:12, David Ellams wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:05:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm
wrote:
Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a
comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this,
either
by having the OS say "yes ok" or at least
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:05:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm
wrote:
> Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a
> comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this, either
> by having the OS say "yes ok" or at least getting a statement from our
> own licensing
On 7 June 2010 13:08, Ed Avis wrote:
> Frederik Ramm writes:
>
>>Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately
>>addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?
>>
>>Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data
>>from OSM without any
Peter,
Peter Miller wrote:
> Fear is an amazing thing. Two Prime Minister's have provided their
> total support to opening up this data (and much more).
"Opening up" is not a legal term, and can mean anything. I have even
heard people speaking of "opening up" data when they meant to release i
On 7 Jun 2010, at 13:08, Ed Avis wrote:
> Frederik Ramm writes:
>
>> Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately
>> addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?
>>
>> Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data
>> from OSM with
Jerry Clough - OSM writes:
>I like the idea for a project of the week using OS OpenData StreetView, but
>would suggest that before we add lots of new roads we work hard to get roads
>which are already in OSM properly named.
>Unfortunately the noname map layer on the website has not been updated
Frederik Ramm writes:
>Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately
>addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?
>
>Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data
>from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed), and furt
On 6 Jun 2010, at 22:31, Matt Amos wrote:
> +1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed
> to work. anyway, i agree with phil.
>
> cheers,
>
> matt
>
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James
> wrote:
>> At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largel
On 7 June 2010 05:18, Jason Cunningham wrote:
> The OS data is been treated as a replacement and hard work isnt being
> deleted. The OS data is only being used to add data that is not currently
> present, or to mark up blunders.
Oops, That should have read "The OS data is not being treated as
On 6 June 2010 22:13, Phil James wrote:
> ...I just feel that blatant, blind copying of OS data is
> prostituting what I thought Open
> Street Map was meant to be about.
> OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-)
>
> Phil.
>
I've got a lot of sympathy for that view. Th
+1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed
to work. anyway, i agree with phil.
cheers,
matt
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James wrote:
> At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely
> favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to
At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely
favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to register
myself as
-1.
Please don't map an area if you are not familiar with it. I have
done some armchair mapping, but only where I am familiar with the area,
and feel I c
Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
> I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the UK
> for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so
> far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.
Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requiremen
I like the idea for a project of the week using OS OpenData StreetView, but
would suggest that before we add lots of new roads we work hard to get roads
which are already in OSM properly named. Firstly it is improving data which is
already there, secondly it using a second, independent, data so
Kai Krueger wrote:
> So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small
> random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from
> StreetView.
How about concentrating on the stuff that you can't get from a ground
survey? Woodland, most waterways, that sort of thin
I've support this 'project of the week' and I've already tested the idea in
a small area.
If you look around the web for critical views on Openstreetmap it does look
like the big chunks of missing streets puts people off.
A few opinions to add.
1. If you know how to convert the shapefile, use Vect
We've never bothered adding verified=no for tracing from Yahoo maps with
Potlatch, or adding new roads in the city with only very rough GPS accuracy,
or any of the other sources of OSM data, many of which are often worse in
quality
than the Ordnance Survey data (which, from all I've seen, is reall
I support the main idea of the thread and the need for good
sourcing... I think if the source tag is provided the verified=no tag
is redundant? Isn't the source tag sufficient indication of the
credibility of the way?
I've found the combination of StreetView and OS Locator can result in
good named
Tim François wrote:
> If you are tracing from StreetView please, please, please properly
> source your ways:
>
> source=OS_OpenData_StreetView
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS
>
> Tim
>
+1
I'd go further, if you find something obviously traced from OS
If you are tracing from StreetView please, please, please properly source your
ways:
source=OS_OpenData_StreetView
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS
Tim
--- On Sun, 6/6/10, Kai Krueger wrote:
From: Kai Krueger
Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the wee
Kai,
I think this is a good idea, and a very well presented argument - a push to
get UK OSM coverage up would make the uk dataset more useful (more chance of
being able to search for an address etc.).
I think it would be worth treating a 'blind' tracing (as opposed to tracing
an area that you know
35 matches
Mail list logo
