On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides
not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing
started
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception
within an online community.
The rash of posts by Jane Smith and 80 m are examples sockpuppetry
at its worst. If you care for this kind of thing, take it elsewhere.
It's not
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 September 2010 19:22, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major
Shhh don't mention the thread on the tagging list about this, it might
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Fun, isn't it?
No, the fun is when you tick that box, then potlatch reads that from
the API and disables the mapnik, opencyclemap and OS Opendata
backgrounds :-)
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all
contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
willing to contribute their data under that license.
Given that that has been the
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
The new contributor rights also waters down my effective
veto rights to control future licenses.
That's one of its great strengths - 150,000 people each with a veto is
not a community, it's a recipe for nothing to
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
Everyone had two options: 1) agree to CC-BY-SA or 2) take your data to some
other
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 19:57, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL
didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well
Etienne, you
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed to
drag on for another 5 years if necessary.
All the time that there is uncertaintly about the license it is harming the
project. Deterring potential
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:25 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/7/13 Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com:
If Richard's statement relayed through Frederik of that at least 90% of data
is an absolute minimum becomes binding, (which would still leave a huge
amount of room for
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see a definition (or an attempt of one, or an order of magnitude
suggestion) of critical mass in that document (or any of the others). So how
is this detailed with respect to this point? If anyone can point me to
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
I whole-heartedly disagree. Do you think that wikipedia should have
forked for their relicensing? Or Mozilla? They managed to find ways to
achieve relicensing without the massive
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Gervase Markham wrote:
After all, if X is 99.99%, then there will probably be very little
argument - which would be great.
Gerv
We would all agree that if 99.9% of active contributors agreed to the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed to
drag on for another 5 years if necessary.
That's not quite true, and I think you know that. The OSMF isn't
exactly likely to have this phase of the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
This meta fear is mostly due to the fact that the OSMF and LWG are refusing
to give even the most vague indication of what this procedure is going to
look like and what is acceptable or not.
Oh really? They are refusing
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
this process appears to be defined no further than lets see what happens
and then once we have the results, this criterion will present it self. It
won't! It will still be an n-dimensional decision and be no easier to
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
until now, most of us (I believe) have viewed the ODbL's Produced
Works concept as relating to something like a PNG image made from the
OSM database. A map tile, if you will.
I wonder what other forms of
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal,
It's not less than ideal. It's dreadful. The OSMF license team have
created a document explaining why. We've had lawyers confirming that
it probably doesn't work. Even the
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'm not saying that Creative Commons are always right, but trying to
make it sound as if they were endorsing OdBL is a bit heavy.
I'm not sure where I mentioned the OdBL? I'm just trying to make the
point to Ed that his
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I'd be a lot more persuaded if there were evidence of a real, occurring
problem rather than a theoretical one.
[snip]
Or in other words, you still believe the the CC-BY-SA license is fine,
all the re-licensing stuff isn't
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Russ Nelson wrote:
SteveC wrote:
Andy Allan wrote:
[...]
Wow, I knew CloudMade had developed some really cool OSM-related products,
but I had no idea a Fast Acting Synchronised Legal-Talk Trolling Squadron
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Russ Nelsonr...@cloudmade.com wrote:
Yeah, I gotta admit that I'm wishing that we could protect the
database as a database of geodata, whilst simultaneously allowing
people to make derivative works that AREN'T a database of geodata,
whilst also avoiding the
On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-
gm...@gerv.net wrote:
b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a
massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort
unless they create SVG files that just
I don't think we want to provide a bypass for the reverse engineering
clause, so much as ensure that it can be an SA produced work plus no
reverse engineering combined.
Cheers,
Andy
Who should be out on his bike mapping Dolgellau instead of reading
legal-talk on holiday...
On 6 Mar
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
A co-worker of yours, CloudMade's very own Andy Allan, had this to say
about the topic:
Just as well that none of us are lawyers then, eh? :-)
Cheers,
Andy
___
legal-talk
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Peter Miller
peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Technical - Tile serving, API restrictions Servers
I am still not clear that there is a need for API restrictions and what
reduction in bandwidth costs would result. What are the predicted costs of
continuing the
26 matches
Mail list logo
