Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
If we get 99% there with version 1.0 and version 2.0 takes the next
two years then the cost benefit, to me, would suggest 1.0 as the
better deal.
Lets first get the consultation input into Jordan, then lets read the
updated draft, then comment again if that is
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months
longer is rather negligible,
The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We
kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could
fall
OJ W wrote:
Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful,
anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if
we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time
for april fools
Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the
The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions because
you mapped them as PD. So we can do whatever we want with the canal
data without having to consult anyone.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
OJ W wrote:
Given that maps need to be
OJ W wrote:
The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions
because you mapped them as PD.
I did? I've done comparatively little canal line mapping in OSM, let alone
bridges and locks.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OJ W wrote:
Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful,
anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if
we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time
for april fools
Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of
80n wrote:
I support Frederik's view that the community is the most valuable aspect
of OSM.
Um, I'm not arguing against that. All I'm disputing is this silly little
notion that maps automatically lose all value after a year or two.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
