Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Verify the license terms for the following sources #92

Closed
15 tasks done
stepps00 opened this issue Nov 3, 2017 · 8 comments
Closed
15 tasks done

Verify the license terms for the following sources #92

stepps00 opened this issue Nov 3, 2017 · 8 comments
Assignees

Comments

@stepps00
Copy link
Member

stepps00 commented Nov 3, 2017

Verify the following source terms and license URLs... (see notes):

@stepps00 stepps00 self-assigned this Nov 3, 2017
@stepps00
Copy link
Member Author

@nvkelso
Copy link
Member

nvkelso commented May 11, 2018

For Burrito Justice:

@nvkelso
Copy link
Member

nvkelso commented May 11, 2018

For Mapzen mark as CC0 license:

Remember, some sources require attribution, some do not. Mapzen's original work, including the format and structure that allows Who's On First to operate, is made available under the Creative Commons Zero designation, and a shout out would be lovely.

https://github.com/whosonfirst-data/whosonfirst-data/blob/master/LICENSE.md#license

@nvkelso
Copy link
Member

nvkelso commented May 15, 2018

LA Times should be listed as concordance only.

@nvkelso
Copy link
Member

nvkelso commented May 16, 2018

for frgov:

License link should point to data license not website terms:

@stepps00
Copy link
Member Author

#92 (comment) / BurritoJustice: license pointer here.

#92 (comment) / Mapzen: updated license and link here.

#92 (comment) / LA Times: marked as only concordance usage here.

#92 (comment) / Wapo: updated license link here.

#92 (comment) / frgov: updated license link here.

@stepps00
Copy link
Member Author

Tagging the above sources as complete, as the usage* tags flushed out in #110. There may be additional work to validate these sources, but I'd prefer that move to #98.

Closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants