Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I think that the people count more than the data they contribute.
That's a good statement. I'm happy that you have finally come to
understand what this project is about! I was beginning to think you
might just be here for the fun of the argument, whatever argument it
Andrzej,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about?
Let's put it this way:
If 300 mappers are enough to put in a veto against the CT or the license
change then we can stop right now, because I am pretty sure that
*whatever* you do (even if
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:03:37AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike
long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap.
I think most problems currently with the CT is because
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anyway, the number of people who have submitted nearmap changesets is 121,
the total number of people who haved edited in Australia is 2752; so while
NearMap-affected data may be up to 10% of Australia, NearMap-using
On 20 August 2010 09:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
So you *need* CT in which the contributor basically signs over his data to
OSMF who then make a database from it.
Has anyone given much thought to how this works for the sui generis
database right of the European Union? In other
On 20 August 2010 18:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as the
license change. I don't think that you can separate them.
Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless
they are a package deal?
The
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as the
license change. I don't think that you can separate them.
Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless
they are a package deal?
No, my statement above is not politically or
Hi,
Francis Davey wrote:
Has anyone given much thought to how this works for the sui generis
database right of the European Union?
Certainly the EU hasn't, the whole database right is written for a world
where company X pays employees to gather data.
I am wondering (as others have
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
(Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what you're
Exactly... you are trying to sell us a particular happy meal that
isn't making us happy...
us being...?
And I'm not trying to sell anything. If you agree that some for of CT is
required, and
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
My apologies. In that case: My main problem is that we're having this
discussion now, when the CT were finalised in June, instead of before that.
Which discussion? It looks to me like we did have this discussion
before
Next week I will be visiting the Adelaide Hills (South Australia) and was
planning to resurvey Mt Barker in order
to add the street names to a lot of roads that have not yet had them tagged.
However to do so at this stage would be pointless since eithe of two of the
three previous editors could
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 20 August 2010 21:30, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
It is for this reason that I believe clause 3 of the CT is essential. This
current situation must not be allowed to happen again.
The problem is the scope of section 3, not it's existence.
13 matches
Mail list logo
