Francis Davey schrieb:
There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong
in principle in holding a vote by email
You mean other than emails being easily falsified and there's not even
the slightest guarantee that a normal email is transmitted to the right
recipient correctly.
or indeed by any other
On 15 December 2010 19:06, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Francis Davey schrieb:
There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong
in principle in holding a vote by email
You mean other than emails being easily falsified and there's not even the
slightest guarantee that a normal email is
On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have
to vote yes, or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active
contributors.
It is extremely unlikely that any English court would think so. The
phrase a 2/3
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes:
On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony o...@... wrote:
It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have
to vote yes, or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active
contributors.
It is extremely unlikely that any English court
Hi,
On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would reach
66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors.
The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT will be 100%:
An 'active contributor' is
On 14 December 2010 09:28, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll would
reach
66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors. It is nowadays a
good percentage even in the election of the parliament.
Francis,
On 12/14/10 10:38, Francis Davey wrote:
Anyway, this is a governance issue rather than a legal one. As drafted
the CT's will require 2/3 of all active contributors, not merely those
who vote.
As written in another message, I believe that in this case an active
contributor is one who
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Hi,
On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll
would reach
66.7 percent, even if we count just the active contributors.
The turnout percentage in the kind of poll mandated by the CT
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll
would reach
66.7 percent, even if we count just the active
Also, the idea that the vote could be conducted via email is rather
humorous. Can't wait to see the dispute over the hanging chads in
that scenario.
I'm not sure why its humerous. There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong
in principle in holding a vote by email or indeed by any other
On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either.
What would you suggest? A website with some form of authentication
given to contributors when they sign up to the CT's?
--
Francis Davey
___
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either.
What would you suggest?
I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says I
haven't already voted under
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says I
haven't already voted under another account, and click Yes or No.
Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing
the vote could manually
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be.
2/3 of me are still trying to understand you, the rest are yelling he's
crazy! - can you clarify what you mean?
It's unclear to me whether a 2/3
Anthony schrieb:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
Ed Avis schrieb:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of
how active contributors are defined?
There's not a clear
On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
There's no such thing as legalese as I've said before. The CT's
don't say 67% they say 2/3,
On 11/12/10 18:31, Simon Ward wrote:
Then I don’t know how to argue against fear (or rationale based on
fear). Do you have any pointers? :)
My argument is neither motivated by fear nor requires fear in order to
make the point that I believe it does. And I do not believe that the
general
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
There's no such thing
On 11/12/10 03:26, Simon Ward wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Meme.
I just said in another thread that I would be happier if the OKD was
explicitly referenced.
I don't think the future
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s
sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything.
You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be
limited by it?
No. I said I don’t think it is
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for
those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM
I agree.
doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in
dismissing it entirely.
You
On 11/12/10 12:10, Simon Ward wrote:
You think:
OSM should not be limited by an external definition.
OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting,
You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a
good idea for OSMF to reference it).
I can’t
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I
think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting,
you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that
correct?
I feel that
On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote:
I think it is unnecessary to leave it wide open.
free and open doesn't leave it wide open.
I don’t necessarily want relicensing to be prevented, but I think doing
it should be discouraged. The Wikipedia relicensing was similarly a big
effort, and they
On 11/12/10 13:14, Simon Ward wrote:
So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred
I would certainly hope not.
I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again:
Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use,
analyse, modify, and
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote:
We got new licences to choose from that countered
“Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget
We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move
On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote:
If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as
“free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined.
But we don't know the possible licence. It may not yet
On 10 December 2010 08:28, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
Eg, the open government licence (UK) requires that certain conditions
are met, eg that data protection rules are not broken and that a form
of attribution is used. The contributor would be in breach of the
licence if they
Hi,
On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote:
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is
deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising
you can think of. The balance is wrong,
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes:
The definition of active
contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking
contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy.
OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a
period of at least
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Or OSMF could simply sell off the servers, have a grand board meeting on
the Maledives with all expenses paid, and declare bankruptcy afterwards.
Oh wait, they can do that even now.
I do rather agree with you that trying to nail down and exclude all the
In general, I think you completely miss the point. Wherever you might
like me to go, I am part of the community, so are all of the other
people who disagree with you.
If a small number of people coming up with the CTs wants to ignore me
and others for the sake of getting something out, then I
On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a
change. It should be substantially harder, not
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard
that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the
control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a
period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts and
do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors
(electorate).
Ed Avis schrieb:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear
definition of how active contributors are defined?
Robert Kaiser
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive
something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that
you received it.
Share alike was a term invented by CC. They define it, in plain
English, as If you
Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is
free and open. I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the
contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority
(perhaps a minority of one) on this point so I don't bang on about it *too*
often
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is
free and open. I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the
contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority
(perhaps a
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Ed Avis schrieb:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of
how active contributors are defined?
There's not a clear definition of how
Hi everyone!
To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT:
1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;
My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT
if I add only my own data
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone!
To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT:
1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;
My confusion and
- Original Message -
From: pec...@gmail.com
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:01 AM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi everyone!
To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT:
1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice
On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote:
About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike
and attribution clauses.
I don't think I'm being contrivertial when I say by far the majority
On 12/9/10, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that, even more than free and open, share-alike is a term that
is very difficult to define, and if one tries to define it, one will
already have written half a new license.
Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you
2010/12/9 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Peter,
pec...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;
My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT
Hi,
80n wrote:
Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive
something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that
you received it.
According to *that* definition, ODbL is not a share-alike license. The
poster to whom I replied, however, seemed to be of the
Hi,
pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't want to argue but it is what confuses me - from one side, you
accept that data is published under ODbL which is attribution/share
alike, but you can't request to keep this clauses in the future. If
that's a story, then it is not fully explained to community.
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes:
If at some mythical future date the OSMF decided to propose a new
license; they would have to be damn sure at being able to convince at
least 67% of us that this new proposed license was free and open on
our terms.
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however
- Original Message -
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Peter,
pec...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I'm
Hi,
David Groom wrote:
Your above paragrapgh neatly sums up to me why the CT's are incompatible
with CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, or indeed many more licences , in that
compatability of the CT's could only be ensured if:
(a) There was some technical mechanism for fallginf data which needs to
be
- Original Message -
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
Hi,
David Groom wrote:
Your above
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:27PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never
do such a thing, but in theory it is possible.
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor
to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while
the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his
contribution is compatible with
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +, Grant Slater wrote:
On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote:
About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike
and attribution clauses.
I
56 matches
Mail list logo
