Richard Weait schrieb:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Hello
I searched without success in the Wiki
who official decided, when and *WHY* they decided, that data of
contributors, who not (can) accept the ODbl, has to be removed.
In
Hello
First thanks a lot for some unknown (and known) interesting pages.
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
That again referenced the implementation plan at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan
Which, under the What do we do with people who have said no or not
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
3. Each element is examined and only those with an unbroken history chain
from version 1 to the most recent ODbL'ed version are marked as OK.
Does anyone know whether the code exists to do this yet?
How are way
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
I'm still searching the former decision (of LWG or any other)
that the removal of data is mandatory and WHY it is on which legal
base of copyright, CC or anything other.
I don't think that there is any decision necessary. CC-BY-SA says data
must
On 04/08/10 12:06, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I also still searching archived versions of old (pre double
licensing) versions of contribution terms. You answered it in
talk-de citing a small sentence but with a preceding I guess ...
An archive without guess would be fine ;-)
You should be able to
Hi,
80n wrote:
Does anyone know whether the code exists to do this yet?
I doubt it.
How are way splits handled (only one half of the way will have a full
history)?
I think they can be auto-detected (i.e. where in one changeset, one way
suddenly loses some nodes and another springs up
On 4 August 2010 21:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient
to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip
through, then fix them in case of complaints.
Which goes against the usual OSM
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:20 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.orgwrote:
3. Each element is examined and only those with an unbroken history
chain from version 1 to the most recent ODbL'ed version are marked as OK.
Does anyone
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient
to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip
through, then fix them in case of complaints.
Which goes against the usual OSM policy of rejecting it if unsure,
rather
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is
sufficient
to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things
slip
through, then fix them in case of
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
Does anyone know whether the code exists to do this yet?
I doubt it.
How are way splits handled (only one half of the way will have a full
history)?
I think they can be auto-detected (i.e.
On 4 August 2010 14:00, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole relicensing effort would be a bit of a non-starter if this
deletion process cannot be done.
During late 2008 and early 2009 a user inappropriately imported (and
amend existing OSM data) into OSM for Lithuania from what was strongly
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If there is anything under development it would be good if we could see it.
It is unlikely to be a trivial piece of code and I'd be very surprised if it
can be developed by September 1st if it hasn't already been started.
You've
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... ]
September 1st represents
a reasonable timeframe, based on the currently published implementation plan
Dear 80n,
Absolutely not.
From the implementation plan. Phase 2 scheduled as 5 or 10 weeks.
Phase 3 as 8 weeks. Plus
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
How do you find your fictional September first deadline reasonable?
I consider it a political deadline.
Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you consider
it, of course you think it is quite short.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... ]
September 1st represents
a reasonable timeframe, based on the currently published implementation
plan
Dear 80n,
Absolutely not.
From the
Further to the recent debate in which I asked and was asked about US
copyright...
Here (thanks to @mecredis on Twitter) is a reference to the split
decision on derivative copyright -
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2004/01/zephoria_kulesh.html
Here is a page about database copyright with
Liz,
Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you consider
it, of course you think it is quite short.
80n first mentioned this deadline on 14th July, i.e. at the time that
was six weeks.
It was unclear to me what exactly the deadline was about; he wrote if
there
May I set a reminder to a mail of mine?
Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing
data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all
have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data?
For such an inportant thing like removing data from OSM project
while licence
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're not
meeting the deadline.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Aug 4, 2010, at 3:35 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Frederik Ramm
On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're not
meeting the deadline.
Regardless I've communicated with some older contributors
21 matches
Mail list logo
