Now that the dust has (hopefully) settled a little on this thread...
Whilst it's not actually in my job description to try and move forward on
how NearMap deals with the proposed OSM licence change, I'm going to try
anyway. Having trawled back through endless discussions, what I'm after are
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
Am 17.07.2010 05:07, schrieb Michael Barabanov:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
The OSMF has a contractual
On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies
who have signed up to the Contributor Terms)..
Erm since OSM-F does run OSM.org the old contributor agreement saying
you agree to license your work under cc-by-sa would
John Smith schrieb:
On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies
who have signed up to the Contributor Terms)..
Erm since OSM-F does run OSM.org the old contributor agreement saying
you agree to license your work
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 18:32, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
John Smith schrieb:
On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting
newbies
who have signed up to the Contributor Terms)..
Erm since OSM-F does run
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason schrieb:
Is there any official archive of all contributors agreements yet used
in OSM?
This, I think:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsaction=history
I meant ALL of them including this one the very first mapper
no. 1 has signed
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
So again, either CC-BY-SA 'protects' the data or it does not.
Or it protects the data sometimes, in some jurisdictions, possibly,
depending on who you ask.
___
talk mailing list
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
So again, either CC-BY-SA 'protects' the data or it does not.
Or it protects the data sometimes, in some jurisdictions, possibly,
depending on who you ask.
On 19 July 2010 13:48, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.comwrote:
Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but
specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this
particular issue? ODBL looks like SA in spirit. Further changing of
licenses
On 19/07/10 03:07, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
SteveC-2 wrote:
And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on
such counts.
If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give
them as little power as possible over the data and its
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, you wrote:
No... it slithered out from the 7th Circle of Hell, spawned by the Evil LWG
and her commander Mike of Norse.
The Brethren Thirteen (the Evil Number) hath rendered blah blah blah...
Seriously - where do you guys get off with these dark mutterings? The CT's
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote:
In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of
ignorance. Shit happens.
Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses
the spirit of
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others.
Perhaps
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
namely
Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything I
said and twisted it 180 degrees. Gun to your head? I'm not even on the LWG.
Quashing discussion? All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG.
There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully
On 20 July 2010 00:41, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Gun to your head?
It certainly feels like it from my point of view...
All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG.
There is definitely communications problems here, not to mention
conflicting agendas at work, you can't
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything
I said and twisted it 180 degrees.
So, really, you agree with me, but I've just twisted it so that it appears
that you disagree with me? ;)
If I've
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
namely stay-at-home sons (and
Am 17.07.2010 05:07, schrieb Michael Barabanov:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
The OSMF has a contractual relationship with its contributors. So if
there is no copyright
Hi,
On 17 July 2010 10:34, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Michael Barabanov wrote:
1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against
ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from
the database.
2. OSMF does not do that;
On 18 July 2010 20:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask them for their
agreement?
It kind of rubs me the wrong way when anyone brings up problems and
the first response (and usually the only one) is to always fob off the
work
On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an
email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either
that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several
rural and
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:19:53PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an
email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either
that would mean
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
data from Nearmap.
___
talk mailing list
On 18 July 2010 21:43, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Is this an issue with the third (licensing/relicensing/sublicensing)
clause? I never fully agreed with it in the first place.
Yup, the license could be changed to a non-share alike license in
future, and some people are trying to push
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:54:36PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
data from Nearmap.
This
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
This also shows that simply asking if contributors will allow their
contributions to come under the ODbL is not enough. I imagine many have
That may be ok, but the CTs go a step further and have future licenses
as being fairly open
John,
John Smith wrote:
It kind of rubs me the wrong way when anyone brings up problems and
the first response (and usually the only one) is to always fob off the
work and expect those effected the most to be doing all the leg work
to clean up the mess this license change over is causing or
On 17/07/10 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if
OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss.
It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed
the whole dataset to
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
On 17/07/10 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF
relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss.
It should
On 17 July 2010 20:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
snip
It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the
whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual
contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but
disregarding
On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote:
In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance.
Shit happens.
Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses the
spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that?
People abuse it all the
On Jul 18, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 18 July 2010 22:51, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing
effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it
seriously?
Most likely ODBL is fine,
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all
the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just
look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing
and
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we
should do, so they can just use our data.
Since you're bringing up Google, what about Yahoo, any official word
from them on ODBL or the new CTs?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:46 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all
the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just
look at the hundreds of other
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:48 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says
we should do, so they can just use our data.
Since you're bringing up Google, what about Yahoo, any official
Hi,
I am a complete outsider regarding the licensing debate (and, to be
honest, to the whole OSM project... I barely started mapping a few
hiking trails).
That being said, here is the main thing I wonder about :
**Is the license change a real choice or a kind of legal obligation ?**
The reason
On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that
1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen
at any point.
The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the
On 19 July 2010 04:02, Sami Dalouche sko...@free.fr wrote:
If the move is for pure theoretical, GNU/Stallman-like ideology, then it
is likely to create way more damage than it would save.
However, if the move is about saving the project from a legal
perspective, then it's probably better to
On 19 July 2010 03:56, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with
everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and
were just waiting for the actual changeover.
That covers current licenses, what about
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things -
that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could
happen at any point.
The email I
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 03:56, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with
everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and
were just waiting for the actual
On 19 July 2010 04:08, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Do you think nearmap are being reasonable?
I don't think they are.
Why are we changing to another share alike license if this isn't
reasonable? I fail to see the logic here.
There are a variety of downsides with working with open
On 19 July 2010 04:11, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to
contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second
think it would be
On 18/07/10 19:11, SteveC wrote:
The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute
anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would
be nuts because then the
On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to
produced works - that would encourage companies to give back.
Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending
to produced works, and the
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things -
that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could
happen at
On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical
situation that you have created.
I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push
a change to CC0 after the CTs are agreed to.
On 19 July 2010 05:17, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical
situation that you have created.
I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 05:17, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical
situation that you
On 19 July 2010 05:37, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
You are creating yet another theoretical situation, John. Suddenly,
in your perspective, the community is clamouring for the next license
change and the next license change after that? I don't see it
happening.
If you are going
On 18 July 2010 12:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
AFAIK the majority of data currently in OSM in Poland comes from that
other project, which still has lots more contributors than OSM here.
Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to
contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second
think it
On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to
produced works - that would encourage companies to give back.
Judging by a same straw poll, very few people
On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to
produced works - that would encourage companies to
I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs,
specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL
is.
Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical
situation that you have created.
I know you like to have personal flame war, but in
On 18/07/10 21:22, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
It's not a question of OSMF member support, I am talking about how
share-alike encourages business to share data with OSM.
Then why mention produced
On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is
share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though:
1) Why we need CT in first place
2) What section 3 is about
2010/7/18 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is
share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though:
1) Why we need CT in first place
2) What section
On 19 July 2010 06:44, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
So, problem is, while ODBL is fine as SA license (for data that is),
CT requires to give OSMF rights to republish data under license which
so far by CT can be also non-share-alike, right?
The CT is also likely to conflict with
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the
relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not
take it seriously?
We started imports a while ago, with the first I recall in 2007.
In 2007 I was not aware of an
On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to
contribute anything (in effect make
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:18 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 04:11, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to
contribute anything (in effect make their
Hi,
On 18 July 2010 19:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that
we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't
do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
basically lick their lips and want us to
On Jul 18, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Liz wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the
relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not
take it seriously?
We started imports a while ago, with the first I
On Jul 19, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
[ snip ]
Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out
that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just
opposing to the text of the CT. The CT is also what nearmap is not
On 19 July 2010 01:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
[ snip ]
Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out
that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just
opposing to
SteveC-2 wrote:
And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on
such counts.
Steve
stevecoast.com
If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give
them as little power as possible over the data and its license.
--
View this
On 19 July 2010 07:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Okay - you're saying that nearmap's concern is attribution?
Surprisingly no, they don't require attribution, which is weird in and
of itself, but do require any derived map data to be made available
under a share alike license, so that they
On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this
thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is
firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But
no quotations attributed
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 12:07, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give
them as little power as possible over the data and its license.
Just
On 19 July 2010 12:35, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others.
Perhaps this should
On 19 July 2010 10:18, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this
thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is
firm on the map data
Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but
specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this
particular issue? ODBL looks like SA in spirit. Further changing of
licenses could be a separate discussion, when/if there's a new need.
Michael.
On Sun, Jul
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data.
But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data
than the legalese. Please develop the tool first or
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 04:55:36PM +1000, Liz wrote:
just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by
Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de
My apologies. I didn’t mean to mis‐quote.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple
On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does
Thanks for the explanation. BTW, I think pirate is quite an overstatement
in this context. The proposed license is still a free/open license. Plus I
kind of suspect that most contributors care about potential data loss more
than CC license vs ODBL license, but I may be wrong. Still, let me
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are
against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No
data loss from the database.
2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL
are deleted, people who
Michael Barabanov schrieb:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change.
Where's the issue?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com
wrote:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to change to ODBL, if that
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we
essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected.
And what does it mean for the data to be protected?
It doesn't mean
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a
decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is
sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected.
In
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com
wrote:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this
Hi,
80n wrote:
We have never said to any contributors that their data is protected.
The only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to
license their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload
it.
If we have really never said nor implied that our
1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against
ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from
the database.
2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are
deleted, people who are against ODBL stop
A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF
relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss. If nothing
else, that'd give an idea of how people feel about licensing vs data itself.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF
relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss.
It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the
whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from
Forwarded from talk because it might miss someone not on both lists
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more
inclusive?
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010, 01:13:36
From: Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de
To: t
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the
legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let
develop
I've split this from the original thread before it derails the one it
was in any further, and cc'd legal-talk.
[...]
What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive?
Just some bullet points at first, explanation follows:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to
Roland Olbricht schrieb:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the
legalese.
I would say that the new licence might be good, beter than the old one
BUT:
I also interested MUCH MORE
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
But I don't will accept any data loss because only of legal reasons.
Wikipedia and other projects changed licence without any loss of data.
Unfortunately Wikipedia took advantage of a loophole: contributors agreed to
the current GFDL or any later version, and they
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change.
Where's the issue?
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM,
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
