On 2011-07-08 16:14, Anthony wrote:
You're all missing the point, though. My contention is not that OSM
is a database of non-geographical facts (*). My contention is that it
consists of the *expression* of facts.
Just do be sure that I don't misunderstand you again:
This way:
way
On 2011-07-09 18:02, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Andreas Perstinger
This way:
way id=115031489 timestamp=2011-05-26T23:47:10Z uid=74617
user=JohnSmith visible=true version=1 changeset=8258292
nd ref=1300468480/
nd ref=1301344689/
nd ref=1301344690/
and one
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts
is, quite frankly, laughable.
I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a
non-geographical fact in the database.
Bye, Andreas
On 2011-07-08 09:10, Maarten Deen wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts
is, quite frankly, laughable.
I would like to join the laughter so please show me
On 2011-07-06 23:31, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces
a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM
map or by just moving
Probably OT:
On 2011-07-07 02:25, John Smith wrote:
How many painters die poor?
What about famous composers?
Economics became an issue much later.
So artists have a human right to be rich?
There are many reasons why painters or composers die poor (people don't
like their work and don't
On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why
bother about licenses at all?
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
On 2011-07-07 08:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the
pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork.
I know who John Smith and his fellows are and I even read their
On 2011-07-07 08:39, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Andreas Perstinger
No (see above). But I think it's more a question of morality and adhering to
community guidelines. Legally I don't see any problems using informations
from any map (or aerial imagery).
But using
On 2011-07-07 09:35, 80n wrote:
Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments
about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good
faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have
not agreed to the CT have not
On 2011-07-07 08:48, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem
On 2011-07-07 19:55, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL
map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but
perhaps you would: How far away
Sorry for replying late but I had to leave for the night shift yesterday.
On 2011-07-05 15:28, John Smith wrote:
On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node?
If I put one additional
On 2011-07-06 20:23, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
started JOSM, opened a new layer, added
On 2011-07-06 22:17, John Smith wrote:
Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this?
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone
retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at
the current OSM map or by just moving
John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes:
On 5 July 2011 05:42, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaakko@... wrote:
But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of
anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but
has only marked it with, say,
On 2011-06-08 03:25, David Groom wrote:
Why do you and some others think that the majority of the contributors
are dumb sheeps who will sign everything?
1) Because I've seen postings to various OSM emailing lists along the
lines of:
(i) I trust OSM to get it right and so I just agreed to the
On 2011-01-05 14:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
These points are not relevant. Once OSM continues under new license and CT
(as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn.
Just out of curiosity: What do you consider as your data?
Bye, Andreas
On 2010-12-22 01:24, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops
publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under
CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA
On 2010-12-23 04:14, Anthony wrote:
I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear
license? This would be one point for them to clarify.
Good point. I think the discussion here on the mail list is not leading
to a clear license because we all are just interpreting and
On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not
created to control the data. In fact, this was a key founding
principle. OSMF was created to support the project,
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
Then no one should own the database right.
So we're back at the status quo which is in my opinion not the best
option (many uncertainties).
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree
On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree with you that more
On 2010-12-08 18:36, Francis Davey wrote:
There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui
generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that
their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that
view, but other views are more problematic.
On 2010-11-28 21:39, Mike Dupont wrote:
I have also asked this question. If the old license is not any good,
then they should not need our permission to just take the data.
After some more reading and thinking I am of the opinion that there are
two parts of the problem: the license and the
Hi,
sorry for my probably stupid question, but I'm rather new to OSM and
still learning :-).
As I understand it, we build a database which we fill with coordinates
and their tags. Because of the license change some (or most or all?) are
afraid that we loose data from the users who don't
On 2010-11-28 21:29, Rob Myers wrote:
One concern some people have is that large datasets donated to or
imported into the project will either be unable to be relicenced or will
take several years to be relicenced.
Ok, but it seems that these aren't a big problem (except
Nearmap/Australia -
On 2010-11-28 21:30, Francis Davey wrote:
There are two possible answers (I have no idea which applies, or if
both applies):
(i) The data may actually be protected, eg by the sui generis database
right that applies in the European Union and EEA, just because it is
just facts doesn't mean there
On 2010-11-28 22:06, Rob Myers wrote:
If you're Australian (or ever likely to visit Australia, or ever likely
to need a map of it for any reason) then losing Australian data *is* a
problem.
Yes you're right. I didn't mean it deprecative.
The Ordnance Survey in the UK (where I live), one of
29 matches
Mail list logo
