The distinction 80n makes is the fundamental one to me and where the problems
lie. There are two entities here that need to be considered separately.
1) The contributors, their contributions, and the applicable licence.
2) OSMF and the general running of OSM, where not related to licensing of
Hi,
On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF
a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to
their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be
changed in the future without the
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF
a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to
their personal rights. I
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the
license under which everyone elses content is published.
Yes. But
I agree, but this is still a great deal of freedom.
A PD licence would be free and open, but is a very different beast to ODBL.
There is therefore the scope to very significantly alter the license without
the direct agreement of a contributor to the specific terms.
K
Sent from my BlackBerry®
Hi all, thanks for the replies. I'll reply to specific, pertinent bits.
2010-08-13 01:44:38.6323 UTC
Thanks. (Might be worth showing this in the GUI.)
If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
Wrong.
You're not operating in a totally difference licensing mode, the
work is licensed
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example,
* license the data under a non-free or non-open license
Free according to whom? Open according to whom?
* license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
To change the CT, all they have to do is 1)
require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have
a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new
CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
What? Oh, fuck. That's really fucking bad.
So we have broken CTs, and absolutely no way to avoid them. Who the
fuck came up with that fucking stupid policy? With the greatest
respect for the LWG, who are acting in good
And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially
setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed it
and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate another
check. The only difference between the proposed 1.2 text:
On 7 December 2010 20:44, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially
setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed
Cool. Thanks for the info.
it and checked all the other wording, though I'd
On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed
data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound
to remove such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can
submit such data
On 7 December 2010 22:17, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain what You do not need to guarantee that [contributed
data is compatible with our license] means? Since OSMF is not bound
to remove such
On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the explanation.
Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that
is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an
No. Its purpose is to expressly state that the contributor
Franics writes:
What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF
to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are
compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of
those.
This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested.
The
On 07/12/10 22:53, Simon Poole wrote:
The LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't
want to actually do anything about it.
Please Assume Good Faith.
Also remember that the LWG meets once a week.
And that they do read this list.
- Rob.
On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Franics writes:
What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF
to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are
compatible with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of
those.
This or a
On 7 December 2010 23:43, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 December 2010 22:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you agree that the sentence You do not need to guarantee that
is is, but [...] is not having any effect then? It might have an
No. Its purpose is to
Rob
I'm not assuming anything.
But I believe it is fair to say that we (as in the larger OSM
community) don't have an handle on imports in any respect.
This is mainly due to a rather laisser faire approach in the
past, and simply that getting correct and formal approval for
an import is,
Grant
There's a lot of data out there that has licenses that at least
superficially may seem to be compatible with the OSM license.
Using such data sources is very attractive to some mappers,
for a large number of reasons, not the least that it's simply a lot
less work than going out and
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license
On 8 December 2010 00:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively
Mike
insection 4
4. At Your or the copyright holder's option, probably should be You not
Your
David
- Original Message -
From: Mike Collinson
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in
On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Disappointing as ever... [citation needed]
What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up
on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false
statement being made repeatedly and you don't
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this sort
of dishonest fashion, I've seen some of the emails he wrote on the
subject of license changes during 2009 and he showed much more
integrity and moral fiber on the subject, it's
Simon Poole wrote:
Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer,
non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are
compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with
some degree of certainty is just a joke.
Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a
Simon,
Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
My statement above arose from a discussion in which pec...@gmail.com wrote:
I know that
Hello again,
This time, no weird things. I thinked a little about the whole transit data
stuff, and I had an idea: if we think of the very minimalistic set of
things, that someone willing to go to a lost place needs to know to
succeed in planning his trip (I especially think of very lost places,
Hi,
I would suggest that the devil is in the details, please be specific.
my I suggest that you write a wikipeidia article about the agency or
wikitravel page about the timeplan/schedule and I will review it.
mike
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Andrei Klochko
transportspl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 11:40, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and
on with vexatious claims.
What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you
point them out? List archive links prefered.
So you've
On 8 December 2010 11:57, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of
future mappers.
In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence)
openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences
33 matches
Mail list logo
