Frederik Ramm wrote:
I also tend to side with Creative Commons. It is not very wise of ODbL
proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data
without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data.
Allow me a clarifying question in the midst of this interesting debate.
It
Hi,
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
Making those nodes and ways, the users employ
their judgement and knowledge about the landscape, as in I don't trust the
the GPS track around here because of trees and tall buildings, or I'll
place a POI there because I know it's a pretty good pizza place. I'll
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
Making those nodes and ways, the users employ
their judgement and knowledge about the landscape, as in I don't trust
the
the GPS track around here because of trees and tall buildings,
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
I would argue that the latter is creative works and not under the
category
considered by the CC to be data?
This is a hotly debated issue.
And likely will remain so indefinitely. I don't
SteveC wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask
Have you seen this?
http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf
Under the section 'So what should I do?' 'Refuse', it says: Your
contributions will not be deleted
Yet if you click on the link to the backup plan
John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com writes:
If GPLv3 was inspired by Tivo, I think this license is somewhat
inspired by Google and other commercial mapping companies, who have a
habbit of sucking in all the data they can get their hands on and not
giving anything back.
Google have recently
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
Under CC-BY-SA, attribution and share-alike are required when you distribute
OSM data, or a derivative of it.
They are not required, of course, if you don't distribute the data. If I
write a program that downloads planet.osm to my hard disc, then
2009/12/8 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com writes:
If GPLv3 was inspired by Tivo, I think this license is somewhat
inspired by Google and other commercial mapping companies, who have a
habbit of sucking in all the data they can get their hands on and not
giving
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com writes:
If GPLv3 was inspired by Tivo, I think this license is somewhat
inspired by Google and other commercial mapping companies, who have a
habbit of sucking in all the data they can
Anthony schrieb:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of project
sanity: We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has
different effects in different countries.
And
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0
would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to
sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all?
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0
would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to
sue people, why protect the
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0
would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
doesn't apply to Geodata.
Because...?
Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect,
which directly is what you also try to overcome...
Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
doesn't apply to Geodata.
Because...?
Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect,
which directly is what you also try to overcome...
So I
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
I don't know
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
doesn't apply to Geodata.
Because...?
Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
So I can't license data because it's factual?
You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license for
what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an analogy of
GPL vs BSD.
Anyway, back on planet Earth,
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
doesn't apply to Geodata.
Because...?
Factual
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:04 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anthony wrote:
There's no reason to license data if it's factual.
You're jumping from your pseudo-legal argument to your moral argument. It
would help you if you separated them.
It'd help if you
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
So I can't license data because it's factual?
You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license for
what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:04 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anthony wrote:
There's no reason to license data if it's factual.
You're jumping from your pseudo-legal argument to your moral argument. It
would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
SteveC schreef:
So I can't license data because it's factual?
You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license
for what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an
analogy of GPL vs BSD.
Why not?
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
SteveC schreef:
So I can't license data because it's factual?
You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license
for what you couldn't /copyright/ in the
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
You're on the BSD side, morally. I'm on the GPL side.
I know you weren't referring to me when you said that, but I get the
impression you think that's my position as well. Here's the thing. I'm not
on the BSD side, morally.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want
it to be SA.
Morally, I want my data to be SA. CC-BY-SA, to be specific.
Well that doesn't work, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Anyone that traces their trails might think this action is
creative. If that was as creative as writing a computer program or
an algorithm[1] that did this for you... then one probably
understand that one is not making a
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I
want it to be SA.
Morally, I want my data
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally*
I want it to be SA. The legal points you make are just supporting
cases that you're cherry picking to help you.
I don't *morally* want PD, I *morally* want
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009
Ed Avis wrote:
Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the
USA. If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current
licence they would have done so. This suggests that the current
share-alike provisions are working as intended.
No, it suggests that our
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the
list and the wiki...
There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA doesn't
work, but that doesn't make them true.
The only plausibly
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the
list and the wiki...
There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA doesn't
work, but
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the
list and the wiki...
There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the
two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?
Who's Trevor?
I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are
Ed Avis wrote:
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
derivative, rather than the derivative itself.
Right. Of course it is up to the user of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and
*morally* I want it to be SA. The legal points you make are just
supporting cases that you're cherry picking to help
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I
want it to be SA.
Morally, I want my data to be SA. CC-BY-SA, to be
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the
two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?
Who's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information
on the list and the wiki...
There are a lot of
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the
two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?
Who's Trevor?
My pet troll,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In my opinion, CC-BY-SA, like the GPL (which states it explicitly) is
intended to guarantee your freedom, not to take away your freedom.
I should add the phrase to share and change the works.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
troll trolly troll troll
How can I argue with such erudite points?
We're now in the land of relativism where to make a point I have to go and
collect quotes from lawyers, which you probably won't believe anyway, when
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the
two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Liz wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I
want it to be SA.
Morally, I want
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
CC-BY-SA doesn't work is not the kind of statement I think some people
with actual law degrees are any more qualified to answer than anyone else
anyway. Not until you define what it
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement. I
said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else.
So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal
arguments than anyone
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement.
I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone
else.
So let me get this straight,
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
Well that doesn't work,
Why doesn't it work?
See legal-talk ad nauseum.
I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no
proof that CC-by-SA doesn't work
simplification of the argument does not assist anyone.
It may not protect
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a
statement. I said they are no more qualified to make
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
their data to be worth a vote
The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be
able to choose what to do with their data.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Liz wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
Well that doesn't work,
Why doesn't it work?
See legal-talk ad nauseum.
I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no
proof that CC-by-SA doesn't work
I've not seen anything proving
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
their data to be worth a vote
The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
their data to be worth a vote
The vote isn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
to do what, relicense?
Exactly; if
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and
change the license?
What do you mean change the license? Isn't your position that CC-BY-SA is
invalid in the first place?
The OSMF doesn't need permission
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
to do what, relicense?
Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually
means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
I think you hit the nail on the head.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
to do what, relicense?
Stefan,
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually
means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) Especially related
some recent cases over here with the claim This was our intention the
intention for OSM
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;)
So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or
2009/12/8 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Frederik,
Frederik Ramm schreef:
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyway,
you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
I think you hit the nail
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
Because I'm not convinced
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.comwrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
Because I'm not convinced that
On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will
give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will,
considering that Creative
On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:03 AM, 80n wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Matt Amos schreef:
we're talking about moving to another
license with very similar requirements, but a
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed
downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..
If you call this a vote, then we have pretty
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
It is not very wise of ODbL
proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data
without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data.
Personally I don't because the former is a legal opinion and the latter is a
moral crusade opinion.
On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed
downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will
give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will,
considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to
Open
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Matt Amos schreef:
we're talking about moving to another
license with very similar requirements, but a different
implementation, and that's not
Hi all,
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the
OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I mapped.
The Indonesian islands
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I looked at the license and I said Why are they bothering with this
crap? It's not like this stuff is copyrightable in the first place.
Well, I guess that this stuff is protected by some laws in some
jurisdictions, so CC-BY-SA is useful for waiving those rights in
SteveC wrote:
Oh we have those people though, matt is calm, rational and diligently
replying to the concerns. Note its mostly misunderstood or ignored by
people like 80n. That frees me to lose my temper with the passive
aggressive lot who just want to screw everything up and can't work
At 10:26 PM 5/12/2009, Ian Dees wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email
about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this
site. If you have not received an email, first please
At 01:58 AM 6/12/2009, John Smith wrote:
2009/12/6 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on
the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems
than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore
80n wrote:
You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken
as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others
would all have helped themselves to our data by now.
You can't continue
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken
as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of project
sanity: We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has
different effects in different countries.
And that is one of the
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote:
Hi all,
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the
OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of
our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please.
Show us the evidence of license abuse please.
Shalabh wrote:
Steve,
I have to agree with John. Fence sitter or not, Ulf has raised a point
which has not been answered till now. More importantly, mappers like
me who contribute everyday and are not part of OSMF have no clue about
what this is. Now that this discussion is so openly in
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want
with the OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract
limiting those rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I
mapped. The Indonesian islands I
It is clear that we all have different opinions about this license
change. However, I would like to hear down-to-earth explaining what
and how will happen when license change kicks in? How OSMF will work
with contributors to get their data converted? How they will try to
convince them? etc.
If it
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
