If you look at the history of edits that user in South Africa, there
you will see absolutely the same story:
1) remove the correct data
2) adding bogus data
3) removal of their incorrect data
So I do not think that the problem is that he did not read the message.
2010/7/17 Frederik Ramm
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 05:27, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I'm not talking about Andril's talk. There was someone who had
created a small app using Spatialite and a GTK frontend during the
conference.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2010/Lightning_Talks
it
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone gave a lightening talk at sotm about using Spatiallite with osm.
He wrote a blog post about Spatiallite:
http://www.enricozini.org/2010/tips/osm-search-nodes/
___
talk
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
Liz schrieb:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will
remain available under the old license.
If you take somewhere between one third and one quarter of the data for a well
defined area and lock it up from
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
Is there a summary available, in layman's language, of the differences between
the old license and the proposed new license? I am still a bit unclear on the
net effects, other than a sizable amount of the data being moved from the OSM
database to a different database.
--
John F. Eldredge --
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:58 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
Is there a summary available, in layman's language, of the differences
between the old license and the proposed new license? I am still a bit
unclear on the net effects, other than a sizable amount of the data being
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 Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:56:57PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
Limiting a hypothetical (what should it be called? referendum?) to
just active contributors might exclude some who have just agreed to
the license upgrade. Is this the right thing to do? Should the
hypothetical referendum(?) be
Aleksandr Dezhin wrote:
As I know Anthony (one_half_3544) tried to contact this user on July 8
[1].
Yes, I've mailed him on 8th, and since he uses potlatch, he should have
seen my message.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
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,
this made my day :-)
As OSM has gone on I've found more and more that I'm attacked when people
simply don't listen (I got flames in David Earls talk at SOTM when I said 'tag
equivalences were going to be part of the original tagging system', people
flamed me saying they thought that me hating
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
Changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5057715 added an
apostrophe to every name St Johns Street in the northern hemisphere. It seems to
me that this was a very unselective edit and conversation with the editor leaves
me unconvinced of its value. I am therefore wondering whether
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 Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Sami Dalouche sko...@free.fr wrote:
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).
Hi Sami,
Welcome to OSM. We love mapping and hiking trails and
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 July 2010 19:56, Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote:
Changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5057715 added an
apostrophe to every name St Johns Street in the northern hemisphere. It seems
to
me that this was a very unselective edit and conversation with the editor
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
There are two new changesets today on the northern coast of Russia.
Looks like he deleted 7 ways.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Anthony onehalf3...@gmail.com wrote:
Aleksandr Dezhin wrote:
As I know Anthony (one_half_3544) tried to contact this user on July 8
[1].
Yes, I've mailed him
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
This is a common insult, used to imply that the person in question is too inept
to make it on their own. I am not certain where the basement portion of the
stereotype comes from, unless it is to imply the person can't even get along
their parents.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re:
His own or old ones?
2010/7/19 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com:
There are two new changesets today on the northern coast of Russia.
Looks like he deleted 7 ways.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Anthony onehalf3...@gmail.com wrote:
Aleksandr Dezhin wrote:
As I know Anthony
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
New ones by this user. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Juergenian/edits
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Kirill Bestoujev bestou...@gmail.com wrote:
His own or old ones?
2010/7/19 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com:
There are two new changesets today on the northern coast of Russia.
Looks
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:41:15AM +0200, Federico Cozzi wrote:
Ti meriti un monumento!
Non esageriamo, al massimo una birra :)
Per il tuo caso (mapping party da più PC con stesso IP) ti suggerisco
di investigare uno dei vari software di cache WMS a cui far puntare
tutti i client dei
Il 18/07/2010 7.27, Filippo Dal Bosco - ha scritto:
Il giorno Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:16:23 +
G Zambonigd.zamb...@tiscali.it ha scritto:
Se non sbaglio quando scrivi qualcosa sulla barra degli indirizzi non
e' Google che ti risponde ma il server DNS. Sara' il server DNS
del tuo provider ad
il DNS fa tuttaltre cose: gli mandi il nome di un server/sito e se
corrisponde esattamente ad un IP ti spedisce l' IP.
Hai ragione, se il nome inserito è corretto www.x.yyy, ma quando scrivi
solo cosa succede?
se immetti un indirizzo sbagliato possono succedere 2 cose:
- il DNS
Il giorno Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:33:34 +0200
G Zamboni gd.zamb...@tiscali.it ha scritto:
Hai ragione, se il nome inserito è corretto www.x.yyy, ma quando
scrivi solo cosa succede?
io uso come DNS quello di google che ha IP
8.8.8.8.
per le tue ipotesi basta provare e scrivere in
il DNS fa tuttaltre cose: gli mandi il nome di un server/sito e se
corrisponde esattamente ad un IP ti spedisce l' IP.
Hai ragione, se il nome inserito è corretto www.x.yyy, ma quando
scrivi
solo cosa succede?
se immetti un indirizzo sbagliato possono succedere 2 cose:
- il DNS
Il giorno Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:10:43 +0200
Fabri erfab...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Dunque, prima cercando osm mi reindirizzava al primo risultato di
google (www.openstreetmap.org) e adesso è stato declassato/boicottato
dal motore di ricerca?
google è un sito commerciale che vende pubblicità.
Il giorno Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:47:49 +0200
Stefano Cavallari stef...@cavallari.cjb.net ha scritto:
On Sunday 18 July 2010 12:24:05 Filippo Dal Bosco - wrote:
Puoi chiedere ( pagando) che dato una certo tipo di ricerca il tuo
sito venga messo in testa al esito della ricerca. Nello
Hallo!
Etwas kurzfristig diese Ankündigung, aber trotzdem erst recht:
Am Donnerstag findet wieder der Innsbrucker Stammtisch statt.
Weil der LUGT Stammtisch ausfällt, dieses Mal in privatem Rahmen bei
Philipp Spitzlinger, Eckenried 6 in Innsbruck-Mühlau.
Boris Cornet wrote:
Hallo!
Etwas kurzfristig diese Ankündigung, aber trotzdem erst recht:
Am Donnerstag findet wieder der Innsbrucker Stammtisch statt.
Weil der LUGT Stammtisch ausfällt, dieses Mal in privatem Rahmen bei
Philipp Spitzlinger, Eckenried 6 in Innsbruck-Mühlau.
6 Minuten nach
Hi all,
It seems to me mapping contributors can primarily influence in outcome
of the relicensing in two ways: their choice relicensing their own
contributions in the project and their involvement after the switch. I
was considering how those two factors can be used to encourage others to
On 18 July 2010 23:00, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
an amicable arrangement. I am not suggesting backmail! After all, the whole
point of PD is that people can do what they want with the data.
I fail to see how you can force people to dual license as PD, since
you even acknowledge
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:00:30PM +0100, TimSC wrote:
For the conditions for relicensing our individual contribution's, I
propose the following. Each data object (either a node, way or
relation) have one or more authors. For each data object, we will
agree to relicense our data as ODbL, if
Tim,
TimSC wrote:
Firstly, the pro-PD people could
propose a strings attached deal to OSMF as a condition for relicensing
their data. After relicensing, the pro-PD people have their leverage
watered down by the contributor terms.
Speaking as a pro-PD person, I think I am happy enough with
On 19 July 2010 03:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am happy that OSMF have added the PD option to the relicensing question,
and I will try to convince as many mappers as possible to tick it. It makes
no difference for the legal side of implementing ODbL but I hope that the
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
people deriving from say Yahoo, is that information allowed to become PD?
Yes. Contrary to popular belief, Yahoo has never struck any special
agreement with OSM. They have evaluated their own terms of service and
concluded that tracing off their imagery is generally
Hoi,
Zoals iedereen ongetwijfeld weet, is Utrecht een stad met een lange
geschiedenis. Het biedt voor elk wat wils, van toerist tot shopper tot
concertganger. Om dit beter inzichtelijk te maken, wil ik graag wat doen
aan het lage aantal points of interest (POIs). Dit is ook een
uitstekende
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, having had a look at the new coverage in the Hunter Valley, there
is a huge amount of detail you can get from Nearmap that would be
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new
Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going
bye bye, all the
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-au mailing list
On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 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.
On 18 July 2010 22:10, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 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
Where do we vote against the ODBL?
Im sure not going to start again.
Markus.
-Original Message-
From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of John Smith
Sent: Sunday, 18 July 2010 9:06 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re:
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 18 July 2010 12:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
than a share alike
I'm wondering how to fix up Lake Illawarra?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.5213lon=150.8437zoom=13
This does not render as blue water in the OSM Australia maps when
viewed in MapSource or my Garmin GPS. I suspect this is because the
inlet is not closed off; also the northern side of
On 18 July 2010 23:29, Ken Bosward kbosw...@bosward.net wrote:
I'm wondering how to fix up Lake Illawarra?
Does it need to be fixed, or does pre-processing software need to be fixed?
Should it be the case that the coastline tag should only be on the actual
coast (and should also be used to
1 - 100 of 264 matches
Mail list logo
