On 29 August 2010 23:41, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote:
Eric Jarvies
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 29, 2010, at 3:10 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does
Y have to the data to begin
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
wrote:
...why should the onus of forking be
on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones
Am 29.08.2010 17:52, schrieb Rob Myers:
The longest running free software and free culture projects have had to
change their licences to reflect the changing environment in which they
exist. OSM will be no different.
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Someone
in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and
someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote:
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just
fine.
*) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1)
Some people think that GPL upgrades aren't subtle,
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.
There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that
are merely an extension of the existing license, than
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court
cases that demonstrate that it
On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than
fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its
own authors.
I care less about the license than the data, and the only way to
ensure
Am 30.08.2010 12:03, schrieb Rob Myers:
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote:
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just
fine.
*) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1)
Some
On 08/30/2010 11:06 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.
There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that
are merely
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
If OSM ends up asking governments to reduce people's freedom to use map
data in order to restore that freedom, do you really think that would be
a good idea?
This is a new concept on the list, that OSM starts negotiations with
governments over licensing
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL
3 was seen as a major change.
No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and
spin it anyway you like, GPL2 to GPL3 was evolution, not
On 08/30/2010 11:28 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL
3 was seen as a major change.
No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and
spin it anyway
On 08/30/2010 11:44 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:40, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the
majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
You are trying to claim that open
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.
*If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a
valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open ended with a very
low barrier for change to
Am 30.08.2010 12:16, schrieb John Smith:
On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than
fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its
own authors.
I care less about the license
2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
sources, and so far no one is offering to come to
On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run the
servers) agrees with the license change, why should the onus of forking be on
the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones who
should
On 30/08/2010, at 3:04 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Perfect. So the new license is being shown as possibly non effective
against such an attack.
I've asked about this case before on the list, and gotten no real response
about it.
Consider for example if someone in the US[0]
On 30/08/2010, at 3:24 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point
importing,
the OSM data is under the jurisdiction of England and has to obey
english copyright law. no?
No, people are bound by the copyright law where they
On 27/08/2010, at 1:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
Or you could just assign the task of deciding what it means to
someone. Whether or not a future license is share alike shall be
determined by a vote of the OSMF board.
Sure, except I don't know that will really help. If people want certainty that
all
On 08/30/2010 12:09 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.
*If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a
valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open
On 08/30/2010 01:09 PM, James Livingston wrote:
On 30/08/2010, at 3:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
projects of non-profit foundations.
It can yes, however there are a lot of developers who refuse to work on
projects that
2010/8/29 jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the time of writing (spring 2008),
well spring isn't in March (here)
spring starts shortly
so whoever wrote that was a
2010/8/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the time of writing (spring 2008),
well spring isn't in March (here)
spring starts
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
How does one decliner-changeset in the
middle of a chain of accepter-changestes effect the future data if the
decliner made one position change, and subsequent editors made further
position changes?
I'd say usually it
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the
last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter positioned it
anywhere in the history, delete
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the
last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
accepter was modified by an accepter, make the modification.
What's the identity of the tag though, is
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
accepter was modified by
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
With a leaky license like the CC-By-SA, the project as a whole gets the worst
of
both worlds, PD and share-alike.
And with ODbL, they get the worst of three worlds, PD, share-alike,
and EULA hell.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the time of writing (spring 2008),
For me, I heard about
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:04 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit
of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take
the data and just use it, but then it becomes much harder for them to
in turn
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
Production.
Are there any moderators here?
Can we get this troll banned please.
___
legal-talk mailing
I second that.
Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just
causing problems.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't abandon the relicensing effort, but start a new
relicensing effort, focussed on fixing the problems with CC-BY-SA
without adding on a dozen other special interest fixes like Produced
Works and Contributor Terms
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:55 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I second that.
Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just
causing problems.
I use fake account yes, like Anthony and John Smith and 80n. Fake fake fake.
We have to
42 matches
Mail list logo
