On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
The OSMF are
OpenStreetMap contributors.
However
OpenStreetMap contributors != OSMF
because OSMF is a subset of contributors
(although being a contributor is not a prerequisite, so this may not be
completely true).
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Please Do Not Feed The
Trolls.
The person who has chosen the pseudonym Jane Smith has a right to have their
point heard.
I would not consider this person to be a troll, whether or not I am the person
recalled as intending to be publicly
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
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 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 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
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 Wed, 25 Aug 2010, 80n wrote:
By way of a rather tongue-in-cheek contrast I thought I'd prepare my own
graphic showing how many OSM contributors have now agreed to CC-BY-SA. In
this graphic the green boxes are those who have agreed and the red boxes
are those who have not:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Hi,
On 20 August 2010 03:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
one million objects is really not
something we should make a big fuss about. [...]
After the Haiti earthquake, 1
million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't
know.
If I, as a company director, in Australia, receive legal advice obtained for
that company, I can share it with the entire Board, and then the Board makes
the decision on with whom
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative
works. It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and
information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing. If you believe
strongly in pandemic virality, then it
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal
review from OSMF's lawyers...
Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more in-line with
what is now the
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.
The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as accurate as the
imported one.
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.
for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept on their own
sector of the planet?
Liz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case.
A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data.
But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data
than the legalese. Please develop the tool first
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying
to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of
Australians.
a complete untruth
I see that you are based in UK
so I'm not sure how you obtained such advice.
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
Has anyone asked the Australian or New Zealand governments how scared
they would be of ODbL?
This statement indicates your complete failure to understand political
process.
I'm not young, I'm white haired actually, and glib remarks like this don't
Forwarded from talk because it might miss someone not on both lists
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more
inclusive?
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010, 01:13:36
From: Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de
To:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
Given this, the facts are still that a majority voted and a clear
majority of the votes were in favour.
False
A majority of *contributors* have not voted, not even a majority of
contributors who edited anything in the last year.
Offering a vote to those
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Sam Larsen wrote:
I feel imho that the LWG do represent the vast majority of mappers, care
about the project, care about all the hard work that we all have put into
this, have noted all the concerns that have been raised and will not make
a decision that will cause too
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Andy Allan wrote:
After lots of discussions and What if... scenarios we've all come to
the realisation that it's much better to find out what actually
happens, and make decisions based on the results.
I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of
democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they
are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to be.
It's not a vote.
It's a
overall?
number of active contributors
quantity of data?
I do not accept that a decision can be made without the numbers being set
*first*.
LIz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
users can't sort it out
fails the usability test.
Liz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, elf Pavlik wrote:
Hello Everyone!
I just asked on GeoNames mailing list why they don't use OSM for their
map functionality.
http://groups.google.com/group/geonames/t/ec02877f850cf6c7
A person named Marc responded that OSM share-alike license is too
restrictive. Please
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote:
Interesting. That is a lower figure than I personally was envisioning
when we made the above definition, and therefore potentially
disenfranchising of genuine OSM community. Perhaps we
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I have tried to write to them,
but all of the contact pages are 404 broken.
I guess the internet filter of AU is working well!
mike
a protest hacking into the websites
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/11/2816658.htm
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Gervase Markham wrote:
The new Contributor Terms contain the equivalent of a joint copyright
assignment to the OSMF. That makes this recent article by Michael Meeks
on copyright assignment in free software very relevant:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Hi,
Somebody might get interested in having a look at the business idea of
PublicEarth and their Terms of Use. I feel they won't get very many
places from me.
http://publicearth.com/
http://publicearth.com/terms
-Jukka Rahkonen-
My look at
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, SteveC wrote:
Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial'
means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? I've banged
around the wiki looking but might might have missed it. Here's the
first important bit relevant to this in the ODbL:
on
the ground we don't have complete or accurate data.
I checked intellitrac's site, and I don't think that in 2009 we have good
enough data for such a purpose.
Liz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
?
I mean can we use it for commercial use?
Thanks for your time
Regards
Mohamad
Mohamad,
right now we don't have enough coverage in Australia for you to be using OSM
for tracking purposes.
But do you have tracks and other data that could be contributed?
Liz
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
OSM needs a protocol in which suspect material is reported in a
particular manner; contact is made with the mapper involved; a small time
period is given for reply; all suspect material removed until resolution.
But in this case, as related by
, even
non-commercial could affect my decision making I have to declare the
interest.
Liz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kari Pihkala wrote:
I was browsing through geocommons.com and noticed that they have a lot of
data extracted from OSM (hundreds of thousands of points). They are
relicensing the data with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. OSM
data is originally licensed with
developers that
In the mean time, the advice to credit maps and distributed data with the
phrase 'map data CCbySA www.openstreetmap.org' seems sensible advice!
Liz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
make software for a company, and are paid a wage, they own your
work.
I guess that is very similar, but there have been some legal cases with
companies chasing their previous employees who have decided to recreate their
masterpiece after leaving the job.
Liz
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Albertas Agejevas wrote:
Hello,
I hope this is the right place for these matters.
I have found evidence that user Pranas seems to have uploaded lots of
Google Maps/TeleAtlas data into OSM. For example, look at this
intersection:
is separate work to
photographing and tracing.
Liz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
I just read through
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2008/71.html
In 128 the appellate court is saying that they did not copy facts, but
instead they copied
the guide created by Nine, because the aggregatators had pretty much copied
the
42 matches
Mail list logo
