On 2 Mar 2009, at 07:38, Gustav Foseid wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Not so, it turns out; the Produced Work freedom allows us to combine
OSM data *only* with other data whose license does not prohibit the
addition of constraints, because
Hi,
80n wrote:
I can imagine a scenario where, for example, Google uses Amazon's Mechanical
Turk to pay lots of people to use Map Maker to trace from OSM's rendered
tiles.
Is this a scenario we could try to fight when it happens, instead of
complicating things upfront, or would it be too
On 2 Mar 2009, at 08:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Grant wrote in his announcement:
... Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to
build a suitable home where a community and process can be built
around
it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons
2009/3/2 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
80n wrote:
I can imagine a scenario where, for example, Google uses Amazon's Mechanical
Turk to pay lots of people to use Map Maker to trace from OSM's rendered
tiles.
Is this a scenario we could try to fight when it happens, instead of
Peter Miller wrote:
Sent: 02 March 2009 8:57 AM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Who is ODC and why do we trust them?
On 2 Mar 2009, at 08:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Grant wrote in his announcement:
... Therefore, we have worked with the license
On 2 Mar 2009, at 09:30, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
Btw, we don't have any published minutes from the OSMF for Jan or Feb
09 yet so we have no visibility of what decisions they have been
making which is a shame. I will email them and suggest that they
publish them to help in
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to
give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you
waive all right to
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org wrote:
I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with
fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed.
The licence discussion has been going on for a couple of *years* now.
It needs
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
OJ W wrote:
the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data
does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license?
You can create an image and (provided that your image is not a data
base, a distinction that has
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
OJ W wrote:
the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data
does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license?
You can create an image and
Hi,
Jean-Christophe Haessig wrote:
I surely understand that contributors’ names won’t disappear from OSM
itself, however with that clause, someone might make a copy of the
database, remove the names and redistribute it (only attributing to
OSM), which will in effect disable the users of this
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
There has been some discussion of adding a tag into the planet.osm
header detailing that the data is licensed.
Also adding some contract text on http://planet.openstreetmap.org/ to
cover our non-eu-database-right
Grant,
Grant Slater wrote:
There has been some discussion of adding a tag into the planet.osm
header detailing that the data is licensed.
Actually this is exactly what the license suggests:
Quoting 4.2 (b)
[You must] Include a copy of this Licence [...] or
its Uniform Resource Identifier
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Quoting 4.2 (b)
[You must] Include a copy of this Licence [...] or
its Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [...] both in the Database [...]
and in any relevant documentation
Sorry, overlooked that.
If this is in the
80n schrieb:
As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was
grabbed at the last minute from here
It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment
page seem to be password protected.)
The requirement to include a copy of the license pretty much
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 14:14 +0100, Frederik Ramm a écrit :
No. If that were the case then OSM would have gone PD long ago and we
would all be mapping happily instead of wasting our time trying to
create freedom from the barrel of a license (kudos to JohnW for this
phrase).
Ok, I believe
I'd like to clarify the reason for two (2) licenses. The FIL is being
considered for individual atoms of data, while the ODbL is being
considered for major chunks of the database?
Is this correct?
Would it be helpful to:
[1] Determine what is an atom that the FIL would apply to.
[2] Determine
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:05:00AM +, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not
working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s
far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of
it.
Some
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:08:58AM +, Peter Miller wrote:
I do not read the ODbL this way. I read that only persons bound by the
license/contract are prohibited from reverse engineering.
Clarification here is needed.
When we find an issue like this then lets document it on the wiki and
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
I’d prefer people carry on
discussing issues, here _and_ on the wiki,
+1... discuss stuff here, record on the Wiki, so that when the time
comes to judge whether a revised license addresses our concerns we can
tick off the issues from the Wiki pages.
Bye
Frederik
--
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 01:40:47PM +0100, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org
wrote:
* Waivers : thankfully I cannot legally waive my moral rights in my
country, but I think it is unfair to require this form any person in the
world.
While I agree to collective attribution, I share some of
John Wilbanks schrieb:
In terms of OKF, hosting licenses is hard, and versioning licenses is
really hard, but OKF has been around for a while and is a solid group of
folks. If they are going to host your license you are way ahead of the
game in terms of having a group that is smart and
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:11 AM, rich...@weait.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've attempted to illustrate ways to use the OpenStreetMap database under
ODbL and comply with the ODbL obligations.
legal-talk: patches welcome!
talk: perhaps you'll find the illustration instructive without having to
Hello everyone,
does anyone know if we already have some tags for signposting?
(tagging what city-names are printed on direction-signs at intersections)
I would like implement driving instructions like
In 800m exit the motorway, then stay left towards 'city1,city2,city3'.
for Traveling
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:43:35 +0100, Yann Coupin y...@coupin.net wrote:
While I was discussing my proposal for route_instructions, someone
pointed me to existing proposal that covered part of what I was
proposing. Signposts were part of that list...
2009/3/2 maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com:
Same here in the Philippines. Please stop removing the highway = xxx_link
tag.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link
Just because you are smart
I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River Dart
through Totnes
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF
Obviously those changes have been picked up as the county boundary is
rendering along the updated river bank but the actual river
The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license.
The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of
this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make
others aware of it.
Given that OSM data will always have content licensed using
Grant Slater wrote:
Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link
The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented
highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say that the edits
apply to highway=*_link; I can see several trunk_link and primary_link
ways in my area completely
Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
Grant Slater wrote:
Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link
The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented
highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say that the edits
apply to highway=*_link; I can see several trunk_link and
Tom Hughes wrote:
Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean
people should go round removing it!
Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of
future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of
documentation, and too little
I believe that there's some boundary rendering bugs that are yet to be
fixed in mapnik, I've not seen this one before.
As a side issue, does the county boundary really go up the river like
that or just cut across the mouth? I think we need to review this. I
recall talking to steve8 who did the
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:09:16 +, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
Grant Slater wrote:
Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link
The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented
highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say
I've just added it to the wiki, and since it's transcluded on Map
Features, the wiki promptly went down on saving.
Hope it comes back up soon...
2009/3/2 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org:
Tom Hughes wrote:
Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote:
The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license.
The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of
this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make
Maybe the coastal part of the boundary should follow the baseline as per
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders
The base line is the maritime border closest to the coast, and will
probably not be rendered on most maps.
--[]
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:22:34 +, Thomas Wood
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:11 AM, rich...@weait.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've attempted to illustrate ways to use the OpenStreetMap database
under
ODbL and comply with the ODbL obligations.
Richard
These are excellent diagrams. Would it be possible to publish them in
some
way so that the pdf
The reason it is being rendered is because the coastline is included
in the boundary relation, not (afaik) any tagging on the coastline
and/or overlapping boundary ways.
2009/3/2 Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org:
Maybe the coastal part of the boundary should follow the baseline
Hi,
When the community is asked to vote on the license change it is the FIL that
they need to consider not the ODbL.
I propose that we start working on the wording of the messages that
users will receive, i.e. the initial E-Mail, and the dialogue messages
they see on osm.org when they are
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
When the community is asked to vote on the license change it is the FIL that
they need to consider not the ODbL.
I propose that we start working on the wording of the messages that
users will receive, i.e. the initial E-Mail, and the dialogue messages
they see
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It
was grabbed at the last minute from here
http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/
I don't
Hi,
80n wrote:
Apparently the sentence referring to the FIL in Grant's email was
inserted by Steve,
It is nice to know that Steve still speaks to this mailing list, even if
only through sentences inserted into other people's E-Mails.
Bye
Frederik
PS: If you find any Lolcat stuff in any of
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote:
The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license.
The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of
this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make
others
El Lunes, 2 de Marzo de 2009, Gustav Foseid escribió:
The Factual information license, seems to be a bit schizophrenic. It says
both that facts are free, and that these free facts cannot be used without
including a license...
That's called the stupid jurisdictions clause.
Just because facts
Hello,
Would adding also highway=tertiary_link be too much? :-)
- Eugene / seav
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.comwrote:
I've just added it to the wiki, and since it's transcluded on Map
Features, the wiki promptly went down on saving.
Hope it comes back
Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
Would adding also highway=tertiary_link be too much? :-)
I'm not sure I can think of any examples in the areas I'm familiar with.
Perhaps that's just due to local road design though: link-like
structures seem to be reserved for faster, more multi-lane road designs.
Hello,
I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with
fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed.
I don't understand why an adoption plan has been put up while the very
terms of the license are yet unsettled. How can the authors be so certain
that no
It's two thingsthe county boundary shouldn't go up rivers in the
first place but also the part of the boundary that follows the coast
would be better not being rendered. It seems to me that it must be
included in a relation so that the county is an area but would be better
not being
jean-christophe.haessig wrote:
Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments
on wiki pages, I am under the impression that most of the participants in
the discussion are public domain advocates and that they may use this
license change to promote their views.
Hi,
jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org wrote:
I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with
fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed.
You are probably not alone.
Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments on
wiki
A related tag to check for:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Towards
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Merging a few threads here again...
Just to say that although I hold different positions than the ODC and
OKF on this issue, the ODC project has always been of the highest legal
and ethical standards, and the OKF folks as well. Jordan has run the ODC
as a labor of love for years and deserves a
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
jean-christophe.haessig wrote:
Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments
on wiki pages, I am under the impression that most of the participants in
the discussion are public domain
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
jean-christophe.haessig wrote:
Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments
on wiki pages, I am under the impression
http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/*[highway=tertiary_link] - 1.3mb file
Well, these seems to be quite a lot tertiary_links out there ...
For example http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.95321lon=11.57331zoom=16
(not rendered though, you have to use some editor to see it)
So I'd say we
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license -
what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to
warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in
database?
I don't think that would work. If some
Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es writes:
I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity of
the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes).
I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything.
This seems rather apocalyptic. What
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If you take a *relaxed* view then all our data is un-protected anyway
because facts are not copyrightable.
With that relaxed view I'd be copying teleatlas maps by now.
On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license -
what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to
warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data
2009/3/2 MP singular...@gmail.com:
On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license -
what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to
warn people that this part is
On Mar 2, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
from three people I believe to be PD advocates (Frederik, Russ, me)
and six
That's fair to say. I put my faith in the people of OSM, not the
license. The process of editing OSM is what protects us. We're a
community, and if you
MP singularita at gmail.com writes:
As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new
license - what about tagging such data with some tag like
license=cc_by_sa
I don't think that would work.
Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even
with mixed license.
If
[I sent a message about this to the list last week, but it got lost somewhere]
Most of the individual country pages on the OSM wiki have a box on the right
generated using the 'place' template. This gives a link to view the country on
the main slippy map and also to view it in various external
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:56 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
OJ W wrote:
the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data
does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license?
You can create an image and (provided that your image is not a data
base, a distinction that has not yet
Hi all,
Having 'gotten into' cross country skiing this winter I have been mapping the
trails at our local spot, however OpenPisteMap is not quite working as I would
expect.
I have tagged the trails a 'highway=footway' and 'piste:type=nordic' as these
trails are multi-use; cycling and walking
Ed Avis wrote:
[Add Keep Right! to Template:places]
Done (anyone can do this, it's a wiki). I think it's a potentially
useful tool, even if it does use the deprecated phrase deprecated for
perfectly reasonable tags like abutters=retail (how else do you tag
shopfronts in an otherwise
On 2 Mar 2009, at 15:48, Ed Avis wrote:
[I sent a message about this to the list last week, but it got lost
somewhere]
Most of the individual country pages on the OSM wiki have a box on
the right
generated using the 'place' template. This gives a link to view the
country on
the
My position is that images are Produced Works, not a derived OSM
database.
Rendered images are a creative work that requires skill and judgement.
This is an important use case and ODbL Section 1 Definitions
specifically includes images in the definition of Produced Work.
I further believe
Andrew Chadwick (email lists andrewc-email-lists at piffle.org writes:
[Add Keep Right! to Template:places]
Done (anyone can do this, it's a wiki).
Thanks - I didn't want to risk breaking every single country page without
discussing it on the list first :-p.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
At present OPM does not render these as ski-trails. Is this the correct way
to tag this situation, or can someone suggest a better method?
Maybe OPM doesn't support rendering those nordic pists ?
2) Steep Sections: Is there a method of marking a steep section? The maps
posted on site
However I don't see a link to 'Keep right!' in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom... did adding it take
effect?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
There's another question brought up by the example below that's
somewhat tangential: Does the group think that short connectors at
intersections, such as a separate lane that allows traffic turning
right (left in the UK, Australia, Japan, etc.) to bypass traffic
lights, should be tagged as
Yes I know that GPS elevation is not that accurate.
Says who ? I do have a ~10m vertical precision and sometimes less when
stopped
with my Garmin 60cx.
I find it very enough for many many cases, even more than STRM models
Technically the vertical accuracy is always less than the
Ed Avis wrote:
However I don't see a link to 'Keep right!' in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom... did adding it take
effect?
It seems to take rather variable effect, which is odd. From where I'm
sitting:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bradford - works
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 2:10 PM, John Wilbanks
wilba...@creativecommons.orgwrote:
If Big Company decides to run a mechanical turk contest on Amazon to
extract facts from your DB one at a time, do they violate the license
without having ever signed it - can they possibly be bound by it if they
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 16:48, Ed Avis a écrit :
I'd like to request that 'Keep right!' http://keepright.ipax.at/ be
added to this list. It checks various map errors, not all of which are
covered by maplint or the other tools.
Hey, I just discovered this site, it's great!
I've quickly
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 13:00 +, Kevin Peat wrote:
It's two thingsthe county boundary shouldn't go up rivers in the
first place but also the part of the boundary that follows the coast
would be better not being rendered. It seems to me that it must be
included in a relation so that
Such a cool tool. I wish it worked for the rest of the world. :(
Is the source available that it could be run on another site? I have a
server sitting doing nothing that might be good for something like this.
-Jeremy
-Original Message-
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
Thanks Jon, that's great.
Kevin
Jon Burgess wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 10:51 +, Kevin Peat wrote:
I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River
Dart
through Totnes
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF
Obviously those
I'm still a relative newbie, and am confused about how this could get added
to the Mapping Features.
I guess like a lot of people I joined the osm community then immediately
started mapping stuff in my local area. In the last few weeks I've tried to
learn a bit more by reading emails sent to the
Hi,
Jason Cunningham wrote:
But, although everyone is allowed to add their own tags when mapping, the
community is building up an agreed set of Mapping Features on the mapping
features page, via drafts, proposals and voting.
No. The Map Features page is intended to be a documentation of tags
Hi!
Done (anyone can do this, it's a wiki). I think it's a potentially
useful tool, even if it does use the deprecated phrase deprecated for
perfectly reasonable tags like abutters=retail (how else do you tag
shopfronts in an otherwise predominantly residential area?)
Just don't take every
Ulf Möller wrote:
It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment
page seem to be password protected.)
Passport protection was a mistake and has now been removed.
/ Grant
___
legal-talk mailing list
Hi Peter,
Thank you very much for the hint to that great feature!
Just added that to keepright
Have fun with it!
Harald
In Potlatch you can enter edit mode with a particular feature already
selected. We do this with OSM Mapper and it works very well and
Geofabrik do it as well. You
Hi Milenko!
Watch out, I could take you at your word!
I am surprised that there is so much response and demand to run checks
by many people.
Up to now I've tried to run the checks on the whole planet but that just
crashed the server. You need at least 4GB RAM and 400GB hard disk, built
up
On 2 Mar 2009, at 20:51, Harald Kleiner wrote:
Hi!
Done (anyone can do this, it's a wiki). I think it's a potentially
useful tool, even if it does use the deprecated phrase deprecated
for
perfectly reasonable tags like abutters=retail (how else do you tag
shopfronts in an otherwise
Shaun wrote:
This crossing of a highway and a railway needs to
be tagged as railway=level_crossing
Is not quite right as it should also allow
railway=crossing. a crossing is a crossing just for
pedestrians, while level_crossing is a crossing where
larger vehicles can cross too.
Hi
El Lunes, 2 de Marzo de 2009, Ed Avis escribió:
Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es writes:
I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the
integrity of the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes).
I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than
This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and
how would changing to a different licence avoid that?
It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to
databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data.
So you mean the
So now we are talking about changing the OSM license. On the one hand I agree
that this is necessary but we have to be quite sure that this is the right
thing to do. We might lose more during this process then we gain:
First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the new
El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió:
Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse
the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill
published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse
the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to
Something that's come up a few times in chatting to people is the
front page design of the website and how it's been pretty static for a
long time. That's pretty cool as nobody has felt the need to hack it
away and it's sprouted some cool additions with time. But there are
some things that
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front
pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. There
are some very quick ideas there but it's not a full picture by a long
way.
To get
2009/3/3 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front
pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. There
are some very quick ideas there but it's not a
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 03:39, Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es wrote:
El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió:
Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse
the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill
published under cc-by-sa instead of
2009/3/3 Jon Burgess jburgess...@googlemail.com
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 10:51 +, Kevin Peat wrote:
I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River
Dart
through Totnes
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF
Obviously those
hi,
am trying to compile mod_tile under debian etch. Am getting the following
error:
xlquest:/home/lawgon/install/mod_tile# make
/usr/share/apr-1.0/build/libtool --silent --mode=compile i486-linux-gnu-gcc -
I. -DLINUX=2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT -
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
hi,
am trying to compile mod_tile under debian etch. Am getting the following
error:
xlquest:/home/lawgon/install/mod_tile# make
/usr/share/apr-1.0/build/libtool --silent --mode=compile i486-linux-gnu-gcc -
I.
Hi!
MP schrieb:
This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose
everything' and
how would changing to a different licence avoid that?
It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being
enforceable to
databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the
Hi!
MP schrieb:
What about finding a loophole that will allow convert from cc-by-sa to
ODbL without asking anybody? :) I think wikipedia is doing something
similar with their transition from GFDL to cc-by-sa
An extremely bad idea. This is the perfect way to alienate people even
more and
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
