On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:59:19AM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed?
Yes, hence why I said this (highlighting added):
I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
terms. *There is a very small amount*, but OSMF
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:30:44AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote:
I think this is slightly ignoring the fact that the CT are the result
of compromises, and were developed over quite some time before being
rolled out.
I believe some of the issues being mentioned now were being mentioned
since the
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against
the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a
licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with
the licence change.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
Obviously those who
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is
a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.
I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose
of the GMAPSUPP.IMG file is to display the map
On 09/04/2010 12:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Frederik Rammfrede...@... writes:
If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is
a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.
I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose
of the
On 09/04/2010 01:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/04/2010 12:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of
data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
If you
render as a PNG, without additional metadata you are similarly going to
have difficulty reverse engineering it (admittedly more difficulty than
with vector graphics, which much more closely resemble the geodata).
The
On 5 September 2010 00:00, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hard to imagine that *any* ODbL licensed data will ever get shared
back to OSM. If it is so difficult to share back data then I think that
will be a serious demotivator for many contributors.
Unless the CTs change,or an
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it?
Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL
is better than ODbL.
OSM ways aren't generally representations of artistic works, though.
Hi,
80n wrote:
Ironically, for most people it is much easier to reverse engineer a .png
than it would be to inport a dataset.
It really depends on the situation. OSM has no concept of precision, so
if I give you a list of 100 POIs on a 1024x2048 map of England, you
simply wouldn't be able
On 09/04/2010 03:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it?
Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL
is better than ODbL.
It would make contributions DbCL.
12 matches
Mail list logo
