On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 09:50 +, Grant Slater wrote:
On 25 March 2011 05:49, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
The problem is, any fork under the existing licence can continue without
problem. Any fork under the new licence, cannot use any data unless the
user who contributed
On 3/26/2011 3:55 AM, David Murn wrote:
On an interesting side note, I note the main slippy map no longer has
any attribution text, which Im sure it used to in the past. Is this a
sign of things to come?
LOL - do we list ourselves in the Hall of Shame?
On 26/03/11 07:55, David Murn wrote:
On an interesting side note, I note the main slippy map no longer has
any attribution text, which Im sure it used to in the past. Is this a
sign of things to come?
To the best of my knowledge it has never had one except when it is
printed because being
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 23 mrt. 2011 om 15:19 heeft Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com het volgende
geschreven:
Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com writes:
Pieren writes:
Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this
Z,akskjsjkjdi
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 23 mrt. 2011 om 15:19 heeft Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com het volgende
geschreven:
Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com writes:
Pieren writes:
Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
approximations, the same lies, the same
On 25 March 2011 05:49, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
The problem is, any fork under the existing licence can continue without
problem. Any fork under the new licence, cannot use any data unless the
user who contributed that data can/will give them 100% rights. Those
against the
F. Heinen wrote:
Z,akskjsjkjdi
That certainly wins the prize for the most coherent posting in this thread.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-tp6199509p6207146.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at
Grant Slater writes:
Not true. ODbL licensed data *can* be forked at any time without
asking anyone for their blessing.
I don't see how you come to the conclusion otherwise. The Licensing
Working Group consulted with a lawyer during drafting of the ODbL to
ensure that the ODbL licensed
On 25 March 2011 10:57, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
Grant Slater writes:
Not true. ODbL licensed data *can* be forked at any time without
asking anyone for their blessing.
I don't see how you come to the conclusion otherwise. The Licensing
Working Group consulted with
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
F. Heinen wrote:
Z,akskjsjkjdi
That certainly wins the prize for the most coherent posting in this thread.
lol.
Probably the most comprehensive summary about the licence change process
itself...
Pieren
* Simon Poole si...@poole.ch [2011-03-23 13:03 +0100]:
Am 23.03.2011 12:52, schrieb Steve Doerr:
I'm still waiting for an official request for users to sign up to
the new terms. Have I missed one?
No you haven't.
I thought I'd seen an announcement for the voluntary relicensing (the
phace of
There is a big difference between an announcement to this list and on
the web site and sending an e-mail to each individual mapper. The former
only reaches a minority (very likely a small minority) of the mappers.
Besides the fact the most mappers don't actually read this list (for
example
On 25/03/11 14:13, Simon Poole wrote:
I've personally been in contact with quite active mappers that months
after August 2010 didn't realize that they could actually sign up to the
CTs (this includes mappers that participated in the OSMF vote on the
license change!). To this date the headline
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:25:21 +
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 25/03/11 14:13, Simon Poole wrote:
I've personally been in contact with quite active mappers that
months after August 2010 didn't realize that they could actually
sign up to the CTs (this includes mappers that
Hi,
On 03/24/11 09:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
...and many prospective contributors are being shunned away because a
new contributor doesn't have the same privileges as existing
contributors. i.e. existing contributors can use non-CT compatible
data, but new users cannot.
That's a funny
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:55 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 March 2011 20:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree. Of course it is important how much of the data will
survive, but it is even more important to not loose active
contributors.
On 24/03/2011 08:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
...and many prospective contributors are being shunned away because a
new contributor doesn't have the same privileges as existing
contributors. i.e. existing contributors can use non-CT compatible
data, but new users cannot. Nor is there any way for a
Steve Doerr doerr.stephen at gmail.com writes:
What data can new users not use?
I believe the Nearmap imagery of Australia is blocked for those who are editing
under the 1.0 contributor terms. They have agreed to share it under CC-BY-SA.
The CTs require pretty much a blanket grant of rights to
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/03/2011 08:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
...and many prospective contributors are being shunned away because a
new contributor doesn't have the same privileges as existing
contributors. i.e. existing contributors can
Hi,
On 03/24/11 09:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
...and many prospective contributors are being shunned away because a
new contributor doesn't have the same privileges as existing
contributors. i.e. existing contributors can use non-CT compatible
data, but new users cannot.
That's a funny
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Assuming that Nearmap-derived data is indeed not compatible with the
future OSM license, I fail to understand how contributing data that will
later be deleted is a quot;privilegequot;.
(a) the license change is not a certainty
(b) the OSM instance run by OSMF is not
2011/3/24 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com:
On 24 March 2011 06:00, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
ODbL gives us the real share-alike, open data license that we wish we
had available to us when the project started.
Who cares about share-alike? The fact of the matter is that it's
On 23 March 2011 11:37, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure this is the lie though. The lie would be zomg, not many users
are accepting the ODbL
I don't think that would be a lie. Much or little are of course
fuzzy but I think here you have to use a sort of a logarithmic
andrzej zaborowski writes:
On 23 March 2011 11:37, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure this is the lie though. The lie would be zomg, not many
users are accepting the ODbL
I don't think that would be a lie. Much or little are of course
fuzzy but I think here you
On 25 March 2011 14:11, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
So why aren't the ODbL folks being told the same thing? You want a
different license? Hey, great, no problem, go ahead, create a fork of
OSM. But don't expect us to follow you.
Anthony has been asking this for some time, since
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 00:11 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
Y'know, I'm not understanding something. People whinge about CC-By-SA
not being free enough, and that OSM should be public domain. The
proper response to them (which I think most people agree with) is: if
you don't like the license, fork
The LWG has posted draft minutes on the OSMF wiki.
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_109hj8txbg3
I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats the total number of users
is approaching 375,000.
From the LWG minutes, 163,732
Elizabeth Dodd writes:
I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
In my opinion there are.
From the LWG minutes, 163,732 users have not made any edits at
all and 9277 users have signed up to the ODbL and CTs.
9277 / (37-163732) = 4.5%
all users from ID 286582 on
2011/3/23 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net:
I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats the total number of users
is approaching 375,000.
From the LWG minutes, 163,732 users have not made any edits at
all and 9277 users have
On 23 Mar 2011, at 09:52, Stephan Knauss wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd writes:
I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
In my opinion there are.
From the LWG minutes, 163,732 users have not made any edits at
all and 9277 users have signed up to the ODbL and CTs.
9277 /
On 23 Mar 2011, at 09:55, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/3/23 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net:
I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats the total number of users
is approaching 375,000.
From the LWG minutes, 163,732
On 23 March 2011 19:57, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Not forgetting that's what's really important is what percentage of edits
come under the new license – the stats for that seem much more healthy.
Considering that about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the edits in that figure would
be for some of
On 23 Mar 2011, at 10:09, John Smith wrote:
On 23 March 2011 19:57, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Not forgetting that's what's really important is what percentage of edits
come under the new license – the stats for that seem much more healthy.
Considering that about 1/3rd to 1/2
2011/3/23 Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure this is the lie though. The lie would be zomg, not many users
are accepting the ODbL, when what we care about is how much of the map would
survive a transition, not how many users would.
I don't agree. Of course it is important how
On 23 March 2011 20:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree. Of course it is important how much of the data will
survive, but it is even more important to not loose active
contributors.
Many that were previously active contributors have since stopped
contributing
On 3/23/2011 6:55 AM, John Smith wrote:
Many that were previously active contributors have since stopped
contributing until this mess is sorted out since they don't want to
waste more time and effort on improving things if the efforts of that
labour is thrown out at a later date.
Exactly
I'm still waiting for an official request for users to sign up to the
new terms. Have I missed one?
Steve
On 23/03/2011 09:21, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
The LWG has posted draft minutes on the OSMF wiki.
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_109hj8txbg3
I hope there are no errors in these
* Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com [2011-03-23 11:52 +]:
I'm still waiting for an official request for users to sign up to
the new terms. Have I missed one?
I can't find the announcement, but you can voluntarily accept the new
license and Contributer Terms on your account page (which can
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
Exactly start an OSM Meetup group now? How to explain to them that
if they make certain types of corrections, their work will be deleted?
Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
approximations,
No you haven't.
I personally believe that it wouldn't have been unreasonable to expect a
mail at the beginning of each major phase in the process. We probably
wouldn't be having this discussion if that had happened.
In any case, the available numbers (odbl.de) show that an overwhelming
Pieren writes:
Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this list ?
The strength of OSM is its community, not its license. If relicensing
hurts the community (which it OBVIOUSLY is), then relicensing is
wrong.
It's not
On 3/23/2011 1:16 PM, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net
mailto:nice...@att.net wrote:
Exactly start an OSM Meetup group now? How to explain to
them that if they make certain types of corrections, their work will
be deleted?
Are we
Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com writes:
Pieren writes:
Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this list ?
The strength of OSM is its community, not its license. If relicensing
hurts the community (which it
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 13:16 +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
Exactly start an OSM Meetup group now? How to explain to them
that if they make certain types of corrections, their work will be
deleted?
Are we forced to read
Dont worry, next Friday the licence change will be mandatory
What does this exactly mean?
Thanks,
N.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
+1
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com writes:
I agree. I don't particularly dislike the ODBL, but I am not
comfortable with CT that grants the project permission to relicense
under non-share-alike terms later.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
I agree. I don't particularly dislike the ODBL, but I am not
comfortable with CT that grants the project permission to relicense
under non-share-alike terms later.
[ ... ] I find that the (pushy, in my perception)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:37:19AM +, Thomas Davie wrote:
As an aside – I only recently ticked the box because I had in error
thought that I'd done it a long time ago. Perhaps it would be
intelligent to nag users more about moving over. If we really want to
push it, simply state that we
Well, according to the last LWG minutes nothing is going to change,
because the start of the phase 3 or 4 has actually been delayed by a
week (since they are missing an Italian version of the 1.2.4 CTs I'm
pretty sure you can add a couple of weeks to that).
Anyway see
On 24 March 2011 06:00, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
It's an inoculation. A bit of a pinch, and a sore spot on the arm for
a day, but we're all better off afterwards.
It's more like a tainted vaxination, the kind where you end up a lot worst off.
ODbL gives us the real share-alike,
Remember when Anthony's edits were reverted a few months ago? Well, Tampa is
still screwy (examples:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.13332lon=-82.502659zoom=18layers=M
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.0467lon=-82.5069zoom=13layers=Mrelation=371155
- the latter shows how easy it is for
On 24 March 2011 06:00, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
ODbL gives us the real share-alike, open data license that we wish we
had available to us when the project started.
Who cares about share-alike? The fact of the matter is that it's
impossible for anyone to steal, fork, clone,
52 matches
Mail list logo
