On 18 July 2010 23:00, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
an amicable arrangement. I am not suggesting backmail! After all, the whole
point of PD is that people can do what they want with the data.
I fail to see how you can force people to dual license as PD, since
you even acknowledge
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:00:30PM +0100, TimSC wrote:
For the conditions for relicensing our individual contribution's, I
propose the following. Each data object (either a node, way or
relation) have one or more authors. For each data object, we will
agree to relicense our data as ODbL, if
Tim,
TimSC wrote:
Firstly, the pro-PD people could
propose a strings attached deal to OSMF as a condition for relicensing
their data. After relicensing, the pro-PD people have their leverage
watered down by the contributor terms.
Speaking as a pro-PD person, I think I am happy enough with
On 19 July 2010 03:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am happy that OSMF have added the PD option to the relicensing question,
and I will try to convince as many mappers as possible to tick it. It makes
no difference for the legal side of implementing ODbL but I hope that the
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
people deriving from say Yahoo, is that information allowed to become PD?
Yes. Contrary to popular belief, Yahoo has never struck any special
agreement with OSM. They have evaluated their own terms of service and
concluded that tracing off their imagery is generally
