On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources
such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as
it
may move to PD.
I think we have already agreed
2010/7/21 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net
Well you'll get a say with or without the SA-Clause in the CT, provided
you stay interested enough to keep actively mapping to be eligible to
vote on future changes to another free and open license.
I fail to see your problem. There will always
2010/7/21 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Am 20.07.2010 22:06, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of data and want to
have a say in how that chunk is released? (For example as a
share-alike fan I want my own personal mapping to influence those
On 20 Jul 2010, at 01:20, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
For my part, I don’t fully agree with the contributor terms, and I
suggest we start there because they are also what I’ve seen other people
voice their dissent about.
As I said, if you intend to further restrict possible future license
changes via the contributor terms
On 20 July 2010 16:55, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot
be viewed in isolation.
Why not?
It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked...
I would also like to draw attention to the fact
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:55:17AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members -
among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process,
including the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89%
majority in December last year. You
John,
John Smith wrote:
The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot
be viewed in isolation.
Why not?
It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked...
Please read and understand:
Frederik,
I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage
and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my
entire life. PD guys need to understand that this project might
*never* submit to PD. As much as I like PD as concept, it is unreal to
implement it in
That's really for the LWG to answer...
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my
phone)
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as
On 20 July 2010 18:17, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT
Section 3, even if it is no. But please without PD crowd is mighty
crap
Hmmm so it seems that Fredrick thinks it's ok to loose people as long
as they aren't
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage
and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my
entire life.
Nobody said anything about holding anything hostage. There's lots of
parties to this agreement and everyone has
John,
John Smith wrote:
Hmmm so it seems that Fredrick thinks it's ok to loose people as long
as they aren't from the pro-PD crowd...
The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process
while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid
respect. Telling
I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF
are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts
about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward concrete
plans about how to implement CC-BY-SA in an internationally balanced
On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so
far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely
respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section
3 practically
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
What I don't like is that CT section 3 practically strips all this
good work away, with having vague definition of new and open
license.
Free and open. And personally, I think that's just about ok - OSM is
about creating a free map of the world, not a share-alike
John,
John Smith wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional misdirection
I'm unwilling to continue the discussion on this level. Have a good time.
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 20 July 2010 18:50, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process
while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid respect.
Telling people that they are stupid and their ideas crap is not a good way
to
On 20 July 2010 19:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'm unwilling to continue the discussion on this level. Have a good time.
Sounds like par of the course, you refuse to even think about being
more flexible for current contributors, at least you aren't throwing
personal insults yet.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:05 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so
far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely
respect
On 20.07.2010 11:12, John Smith wrote:
On one hand you are avidly promoting things should be allowed to go to
PD, on the other hand you keep saying CC-by-SA isn't good enough and
frankly I can't see this logic, either you want PD and in which case
CC-by-SA may be for all intents and purposes
On Tuesday 20 July 2010 09:10:29 John Smith wrote:
I believe this is the point Steve keeps pointing out, there was no
direct consequences at the time, and people were assuming there is
still outs later if problems were discovered and up until that point
the emphasis was strongly on the new
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF
are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts
about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward
Hi,
On 20 July 2010 01:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates. One
is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your
contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot extract
PD data
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
(FWIW I pledge that if I can have a no-CT account (ODbL only), I will
register a second account to make a percentage of my edits in PD,
especially those modifying objects created by others)
Best idea I read so far :)
Stefan
On 20 July 2010 11:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If any
any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best -
why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them?
Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of data and want to
have a say in how that
Frederik Ramm wrote:
The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates.
One is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your
contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot
extract PD data from an ODbL protected database without
Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources
such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as it
may move to PD.
I think we have already agreed on having to have exceptions for large
imports, i.e. there will be some data in
Am 20.07.2010 22:06, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
On 20 July 2010 11:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If any
any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best -
why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them?
Because each of us is an author of a
Am 19.07.2010 16:26, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?
Easy. Keep on mapping and be the bigger fish in a couple years.
Hi again!
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of
ODBL).
Is
On 19 July 2010 20:05, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again!
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
of
John,
John Smith wrote:
I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics,
I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
with what is on the table now.
you are literally risking an out
right rejection of ODBL because
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
John,
John Smith wrote:
I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics,
I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
with what is on the table now.
you are literally
On 19 July 2010 23:38, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
with what is on the table now.
Which many people cannot legally agree to, even if we do agree with
the ODBL. It seems to be a mad dash to force people down
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain
(I reply merely to inform rather than to prolong the debate, as sticking my
head into a grinder is already seeming like
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
That would indicate that PD lovin, SA hatin guys will try to stuffin
committee method to push OSM in right direction? :)
The Contributor Terms have been carefully crafted to make sure that
anyone who wants to push OSM in what they perceive is the right
direction
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
of
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again!
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
..
Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?
Does OSMF have clear plans to convince such data providers
2010/7/19 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again!
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would
On 20 July 2010 00:26, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?
You also have both the Australian and New Zealand
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
the
On 7/19/10, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? So far I have
only heard it from business people.
I do.
I used be in the SA camp, until I realized that SA is probably hurting
people who are doing creative stuff and would like
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
or two years, two thirds of
2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM
contributors
want to change to a non-SA license,
Come on that wasn't a flame - now any reasonable point is a flame?
Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my
phone)
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On Jul 19,
We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit
the OSMF has.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On
2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my
phone)
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit
the OSMF has.
Your mentioned vote didn't have /any/ statistical relevance, not even a
vote under the top contributors. But actually in The Netherlands we did :)
With again
It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.
I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see
what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com
wrote:
It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.
I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences
On 19 July 2010 22:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them decide
what licenses are acceptable for us?
It's similar to the compiler warnings, sometimes you don't want to
change your code just because the compiler can't
Frederik (and Steve, and LWG),
Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct
questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice.
Regarding the questions: taking NearMap as an example (copied from another
thread, see there for more details):
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0200, SteveC wrote:
wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
have been in vein exactly?
I think
Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony:
IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
place.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=326oldid=204
___
talk mailing list
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:55:42PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
agree with ODBL (as it
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:31:42PM +0100, Graham Jones wrote:
It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.
I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony:
IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
place.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=326oldid=204
Yeah, that's as
Am 19.07.2010 22:42, schrieb Michael Barabanov:
NearMap looks quite important for Australia.
The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on
a case by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy
with the ODbL but not with the Contributor Terms then
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct
questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice.
Well I have already said that I am against it, and I have given the
reasons. We have a large PD community in OSM - exactly how
Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on a
case
by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy with the ODbL
but
not with the Contributor Terms then maybe that should be done here.
So can these specific
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:32:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there
are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial
imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's
include their data without them
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Sorry, but as far as I remember CT suddenly appeared on the table.
Before that there was just ODBL.
SteveC has already told me that either my memory was faulty or I wasn't paying
attention for stating exactly that.
Couldn't be bothered to look
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on
with the license.
quash all
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
licenses?
I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying that nobody has ever made an
effort to find out what spirit most of the
On 20 July 2010 08:10, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation
who feels they can’t fit with our terms.
I'm not assuming that Simon was necessarily directing that at us, but I
think it's worth saying here that NearMap are
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:20 AM, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:26:57AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
licenses?
I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying that nobody
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, you wrote:
Tell me Liz, have you contributed anything positive to this entire process,
ever, in any way?
I have, whether or not you see it as positive.
I have pointed out that there are problems, and asked people to reconsider
what they are doing so that the problems can
Am 20.07.2010 03:10, schrieb Elizabeth Dodd:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, you wrote:
Tell me Liz, have you contributed anything positive to this entire process,
ever, in any way?
I have, whether or not you see it as positive.
I have pointed out that there are problems, and asked people to reconsider
76 matches
Mail list logo
