On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:12 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem.
But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true
answer.
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net
Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz:
I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
not the other way around.
At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
Perhaps you had better look back at the archives
On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to
spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be
brought down?
Tip for next time, be less overt, it allows the ruse to go on for
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to
spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be
On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later!
Did you have a good flight from Germany?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later!
Did you have a good flight from Germany?
Yar I ist eating mine fritter John.
can you
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an
Apostle of the 'new license'.
I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be
content with the license...
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose
today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time.
On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to
speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same
breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the
decision on future
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose
today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time.
The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you
On 1 September 2010 18:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM
As I've stated in the past, which you conveniently keep ignoring, over
looking or misunderstanding...
You are putting end users of the data ahead of
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they
choose
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:01 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to
speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same
breath is
On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, 80n wrote:
Nobody is saying that CC-BY-SA is perfect.
But they are saying that it is unsuitable.
It isn't but it works. Look at how quickly Waze reacted. Not bad for
a broken license, eh?
Rely on people's good intentions is not a general solution.
The great
On 1 September 2010 18:30, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Still in OppositeLand, JohnSmith?
Can't figure out any better insults?
The Contributor Terms trust future OSM contributors to make the right
choices for future OSM licenses. Do you trust current and future OSM
At least be
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:15 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want
is quite fallacious.
Really? What will future generations want, 80n? I predict that
future generations will want Flying cars sure, but we were promised
On 1 September 2010 18:46, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On the other hand, six-ish years ago there was no concern that we
would have to be compatible with OS data. Now, they publish open data
And how compatible will the CTs be with OS data exactly?
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides
not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing
started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license
changed.
On 1 September 2010 19:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
If you don't want the effects of a PD OSM for geodata, ODbL is a better way
of ensuring this than BY-SA
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't
At this stage I have every reason to believe the CT and now possible
the
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides
not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing
started
On 1 September 2010 19:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL
Is this like all the laywers that think the ODBL is great too?
about 12,500 contributors make up about 99% of the data, how many of
those agree with your point
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:12:21 -0400, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides
not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 September 2010 19:22, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major
Shhh don't mention the thread on the tagging list about this, it might
On 1 September 2010 19:38, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be
mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even
inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging
yourself on to annoy
On 1 September 2010 19:59, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
My comments have nothing to do with the debate or any issues you
Then perhaps you should have used another thread with a more
appropriate subject line to avoid confusion?
My comments are intended to address your disruptive
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
The OSMF are
OpenStreetMap contributors.
However
OpenStreetMap contributors != OSMF
because OSMF is a subset of contributors
(although being a contributor is not a prerequisite, so this may not be
completely true).
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the
new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I
think
When did you come to that conclusion, and why? Weren't you opposed
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the
contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for
people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of
John,
there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find
something inappropriate.
For example this:
John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The devil is in the details.
CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print...
is just unsuitable for a
On 2 September 2010 05:14, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find
something inappropriate.
I've made several comments that you do like wise, you keep claiming
this change is needed to make OSM more free, but that's dishonest
vowed (elsewhere) that they will
continue to be deliberately disruptive on the OSM lists.
I'd suggest the best course of action is, as ever, Please Do Not Feed The
Trolls.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-Community-vs
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Please Do Not Feed The
Trolls.
The person who has chosen the pseudonym Jane Smith has a right to have their
point heard.
I would not consider this person to be a troll, whether or not I am the person
recalled as intending to be publicly
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:41:16AM +, Jane Smith wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
Production.
We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is
what we workers should control.
No copyright was the true reason for
Am 30.08.2010 13:43, schrieb John Smith:
2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
sources, and
Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court
cases that demonstrate that it isn't.
What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq
has
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
sources, and so far no one is offering to come to
Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz:
I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
not the other way around.
At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the
discussion over the LINZ
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many,
just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are
saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL
relicensing.
At this stage
On 30 August 2010 10:36, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open:
- with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork
their data (or is only
Am 31.08.2010 12:56, schrieb Liz:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz:
I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
not the other way around.
At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
Perhaps you had better
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony:
What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq
has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has
copyright.
Iran's copyright protects only works by Iranians.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence
'Jane Smith' might have committed that would cause you to want her to be
banned. She is clearly posting under a fake name: so are at least
On 08/31/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
So that's all allowed? Okay then. Let the games begin. I can create
a few extra gmail accounts to troll the list with too.
I think it's more that we should ignore (people who we think are)
obvious trolls.
I'm not sure that Marxist views on
Hi,
80n wrote:
An ODbL fork would not have same rights to the data as OSMF would have.
It would be a somewhat asymmetrical fork. You cannot fork the substance
of the contributor terms.
True, but I believe this discussion was about whether you can fork the
future ODbL OSM without having to
On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem.
But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true answer.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Someone
in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and
someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court
cases that demonstrate that it
On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than
fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its
own authors.
I care less about the license than the data, and the only way to
ensure
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
If OSM ends up asking governments to reduce people's freedom to use map
data in order to restore that freedom, do you really think that would be
a good idea?
This is a new concept on the list, that OSM starts negotiations with
governments over licensing
Am 30.08.2010 12:16, schrieb John Smith:
On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than
fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its
own authors.
I care less about the license
2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
sources, and so far no one is offering to come to
On 30/08/2010, at 3:24 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point
importing,
the OSM data is under the jurisdiction of England and has to obey
english copyright law. no?
No, people are bound by the copyright law where they
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
With a leaky license like the CC-By-SA, the project as a whole gets the worst
of
both worlds, PD and share-alike.
And with ODbL, they get the worst of three worlds, PD, share-alike,
and EULA hell.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit
of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take
the data and just use it, but then it becomes much harder for them to
in turn
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
Production.
Are there any moderators here?
Can we get this troll banned please.
___
legal-talk mailing
I second that.
Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just
causing problems.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't abandon the relicensing effort, but start a new
relicensing effort, focussed on fixing the problems with CC-BY-SA
without adding on a dozen other special interest fixes like Produced
Works and Contributor Terms
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:55 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I second that.
Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just
causing problems.
I use fake account yes, like Anthony and John Smith and 80n. Fake fake fake.
We have to
60 matches
Mail list logo
