On 03/10/2010 14:12, Rob Myers wrote:
On 10/02/2010 12:18 AM, Dave F. wrote:
Broadcasting the fact you think a contributor, who disagrees with you,
should be banned purely because they have a nickname is:
petty/puerile/childish/insecure/inept/pompous/arrogant
That is not the argument.
The argument is that various people on this list are *using* anonymity
as cover for arguing in bad faith in order to be disruptive.
Anonymity isn't a problem. Anonymous trolling is.
Going on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
It's disappointing that I have to conclude that it's Steve Coast that
fits this description most closely.
I can't make an informed decision about which way I should go until I
have concrete evidence about what will happen with the data, in all it's
forms, that I have added.
Data that you are unable or unwilling to relicence will be removed.
OSM has ongoing contact with the OS and hopefully a solution can be
found to traced data inclusion.
Again, a statement with caveats included.
Shouldn't this have been worked out *before* expecting users to
accept/decline?
The OSMF/LWG have put together a series of regulations of which they
have no clue how they interact with the outside world.
If you agree to the CTs at this point, the worst thing that will
happen is that your data cannot be used by OSM.
Err... Did you mean to write that?
Dave F.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
