On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
We can do the license change now because it is the right thing to do,
or we can do the license change now and make future license changes
simpler for future OpenSteetMap communities.
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database
Hi,
Simon Biber wrote:
I and many others need a firm commitment to ensure contributions continue to be
protected by attribution and share-alike in the future.
-1
(I mean, you may need that but you shouldn't get it. As an aside I
also want to point out that the use of continue to be
On 25 August 2010 17:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in ten years
will have a larger community and a larger data volume by orders of
magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand in any way over and
above the
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves
quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and
distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database
that
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in
ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by
orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand
in any way over and above the
On 08/25/2010 09:28 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
Instead of leaving it open to any free licence, how about we set set the
minimum attribution and share alike provisions and say that it will be
subject to review in X years? (Five?)
For data, attribution is only a matter of freedom to the extent that
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:20:18AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can
you give examples for using and distributing individual contents
that way?
Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any,
because the
On 25 August 2010 08:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
It is bad enough if the share-alike minority force their will on the rest
of the project now; we must not allow them to force their will on everybody
who is in OSM in 10 years' time.
I find this oft-repeated argument to be
The license working group has published a graphic showing the amount of data
that is currently relicensable under CT and ODbL.
Green squares are ODbL, red squares are CC-BY-SA. As I understand it each
square represents the square root of the size of each user's contribution.
I don't know how the
On 25 August 2010 19:59, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
removed (two of which are probably TIGER and AND):
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g51/80n80n/osm/odbl_cropped.png
No, the 3 largest all relate to the US as best we can figure.
The original TIGER import is #1, Frederik's bot to remove
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 Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com wrote:
I've been considering bringing in some of the data available at
http://www.datasf.org . Most of it is behind this clickthrough agreement:
http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp . I think it would be
okay
On 25/08/2010 13:29, Richard Weait wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Gregory Areniusgreg...@arenius.com wrote:
http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp
That license looks pretty bad to me, from an including the data in
OSM point of view.
Nonetheless, it's not one of the
I must have missed that particular section somehow.
I sent off an email to ask the city if we could get the data under a license
we could use. We'll see what happens.
As to how many OSMers are in the city its hard to say exactly. There are a
few people working on the map pretty frequently and
Simon Biber schrieb:
I want to contribute my mapping work to a community who will respect my wishes
that the work remain free. This includes that no-one should be allowed to make a
derived work and not allow others to have the same freedom over the derived
work. This is the essence of what the
On 25/08/2010 17:01, evan wrote:
My translation: Rights Reserved. Permission granted for
non-commercial use including total or partial republication, with the
source cited.
[...]
Then, beyond that single line on the web page, they link to the
resolution, passed, specifically to release
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs:
There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself.
Actually, section 3 will make it harder to upgrade. Under the CT
section 3, the database can only be licensed
Kevin Peat schrieb:
On 25 August 2010 08:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
It is bad enough if the share-alike minority force their will on the rest
of the project now; we must not allow them to force their will on everybody
who is in OSM in 10 years' time.
I find this
18 matches
Mail list logo
