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 Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com wrote:
city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement is
located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp.
See this clause:
These Terms of Use do not grant You any title or right to
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
Rob, thank you, your answers to my barrage of questions were most
helpful, and have showed me that I’m not completely off course in my
thinking.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
Why leave it undefined?
To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
