On 8 December 2010 11:14, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Once all the licence issues are resolved and we know whether projects
will be forked or our data removed, then Ill start dumping all my edits
back in. Ive also tried working on parts of New Zealand, but have come
up against a
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 00:34:59 +
Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:26AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you
for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid.
Firstly, it’s not
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The usual sort of click-through 'agreement' has two buttons, one for
positive, and one for negative. Whether a click-through agreement with
two buttons for positive and none for negative can be enforced anywhere
is not
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Failing that, maybe its time that more people started doing what Im
doing. Im quite an active mapper, as its something I enjoy doing with
my time. What Ive been doing for the past couple of months, is only
making minor
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with
the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you
can indicate your preference right now.
When we are at the mandatory phase,
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:45:14 +1100, Andrew Harvey
andrew.harv...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've decided to just ignore the CTs for now, and continue to operate
under CC BY-SA. Others are doing this to, and you could too, assuming
you haven't agreed to the CTs and you don't actually plan to sit
around
On 8 December 2010 10:58, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with
the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you
can indicate
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Partially a rhetorical question... What would the project do if
someone uploaded data to OSM and then said they had not agreed to
contributing the data under CC-BY-SA?
In case you're misinterpreting my request: I
If the OSMF won't uncheck your acceptance of the CT's, then I think
they should at least hold of damaging the database by removing your
edits until after this proposed change to ODbL. Otherwise if people
insist and actually start removing this data, its time for the CC
BY-SA forks to kick in. I
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
This is really a policy issue I think.
I've replied to everything else on the legal list, but to get back to
the original issue: you seem to be in a position to change the flag on
my account, but need authorisation from someone.
On 07/12/10 11:31, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
This is really a policy issue I think.
I've replied to everything else on the legal list, but to get back to
the original issue: you seem to be in a position to change the flag on
my
Hi,
On 12/07/2010 12:43 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
Failing that, would it be possible for you to create me a new account
(stevage1), and unset the flag on that account?
I'm in the position where I have the ability to do both those things
certainly but I wouldn't want to do so.
The LWG are the
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:43:12 +
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
I'm in the position where I have the ability to do both those things
certainly but I wouldn't want to do so.
The LWG are the people to talk to about this.
I would not suggest LWG. They are a committee of the Board. Apply
On 7 December 2010 15:24, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 12/07/2010 12:43 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
The LWG are the people to talk to about this.
And if they have any confidence in their own work they will certainly not
create new accounts with the CT flag unset.
Provided they have
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 22:31 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Failing that, would it be possible for you to create me a new account
(stevage1), and unset the flag on that account?
Failing that, maybe its time that more people
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Failing that, maybe its time that more people started doing what Im
doing. Im quite an active mapper, as its something I enjoy doing with
my time. What Ive been doing for the past couple of months, is only
making minor
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:26AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you
for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid.
Firstly, it’s not clear that click through agreements are valid in the
UK. They might be in
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
I used to create government procurements, big messy ones where sales guys
would hit the prime minister's office to protest and get fired fifteen
minutes after a debriefing when they lost. When dealing with potential
problems from egos I always found it very helpful to build a list of
requirements
On 06/12/10 12:09, Steve Bennett wrote:
1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)
This is really a policy issue I think.
2) Could someone please tell me when it got set?
2010-08-13 01:44:38.6323 UTC
And for bonus points:
3) Could someone provide evidence that I did
This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new Contributor Terms. I have no recollection of having done so, and
obviously I
On 6 December 2010 23:55, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward.
From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any
nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT
are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT
I think that the pertinent question is whether Steve deliberately
accepted the CT and license or was he hijacked by a bad UI.
David.
PS. Wow, reading all of the emails on this subject over the last
year, it is clear that this license issue and the way that it has been
handled is obviously the
On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new Contributor Terms. I have no recollection of having done so, and
obviously I
- Original Message -
From: Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com
To: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Cc: Open Street Map mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
This should really be taking place on the legal
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new
2010/12/6 Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward.
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:55 -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've agreed to the
new Contributor
Am 06.12.2010 17:58, schrieb Serge Wroclawski:
The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project.
The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is part of the ~3 people
who runs this project :-)
Regards, ULFL
___
talk mailing
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:41:05 -0500
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
We're* also expecting to implement a way for you to flag edits that
shouldn't be promoted to CT/ODbL, so you'll be able to accept CT, and
flag those changesets that are incompatible individually. The bad
ones won't be
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:15 +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Am 06.12.2010 17:58, schrieb Serge Wroclawski:
The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project.
The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is part of the ~3 people
who runs this project :-)
If the OSMF board
On 6 December 2010 20:44, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:55 -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
So, this is
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:45:00 +0100
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
What about at changeover though? Im pretty sure Steve asked this
question in relation to data in the future, not the present.
It's incompatible even at
On 6 December 2010 23:23, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
What about at changeover though? Im pretty sure Steve asked this
question in relation to data in the future, not the present.
It's incompatible even at present.
could you
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
that license.
This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering
36 matches
Mail list logo
