Hi lists,
Sadly, I don’t foresee much future involvement with OSM, so I’m looking
for someone to take over moderation of talk-gb-thenorth.
You only have to see the months missing from the archives[1] to see that
it is a very low traffic list. (The two messages last year were from me
forwarding
Hi lists,
Sadly, I don’t foresee much future involvement with OSM, so I’m looking
for someone to take over moderation of talk-gb-thenorth.
You only have to see the months missing from the archives[1] to see that
it is a very low traffic list. (The two messages last year were from me
forwarding
OpenStreetMap Mapping Party, 17-18 September, Manchester
There’ll be a workshop at MadLab[1] and a mapping party based at
Arcspace, St Wilfred’s[2]. See attached for details.
[1]: http://osm.org/go/evgpgP0y?m=1
[2]: http://osm.org/go/evgoZ7eb?m=1
Simon
--
A complex system that works is
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:59:30PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided
to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT.
In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did
the work.
So why
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:29:51PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give
it to anyone under any terms. Why would you
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 09:40:39PM +, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
I assume that the twice a year change and the funny, alliterative
animal names are references to Ubuntu Linux. Note that, while each
release of Ubuntu has its own name, the Ubuntu logo has remained
unchanged for years.
The
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
Thanks Grant,
I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe
unclear:
What does this phrase (about the
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:37:19AM +, Thomas Davie wrote:
As an aside – I only recently ticked the box because I had in error
thought that I'd done it a long time ago. Perhaps it would be
intelligent to nag users more about moving over. If we really want to
push it, simply state that we
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 01:00:26PM +, Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote:
On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
I must admit, however, that basically
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:25:05AM +0100, Simone Cortesi wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF,
which is what the new CT's amount to, is not filling me with joy
considering their track
[Also posted to legal-talk, I suggest follow-ups go there.]
In short…
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote:
On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
I must admit, however, that
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s
sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything.
You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be
limited by it?
No. I said I don’t think it is
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for
those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM
I agree.
doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in
dismissing it entirely.
You
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I
think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting,
you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that
correct?
I feel that
Rob, thank you, your answers to my barrage of questions were most
helpful, and have showed me that I’m not completely off course in my
thinking.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
Why leave it undefined?
To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means
[I’ve followed up Francis’ post, but also quoted from another
sub‐thread, because I think his post includes a response to that.]
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:17:50AM +, I wrote:
If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
This includes being precise about the
don’t think
they are acting in the best interests of the community.
*I* can compromise to form something agreeable, can you/they?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:54:08AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote:
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:27PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never
do such a thing, but in theory it is possible.
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor
to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while
the new CTs only require the contributor to guarantee that his
contribution is compatible with
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +, Grant Slater wrote:
On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote:
About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike
and attribution clauses.
I
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
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
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:22:26AM +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
You forgot to say that talk is for matters that mappers wish to
discuss with the whole community.
Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important
on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:49:56PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases
(including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section
4.4)
I think the upgrade clause in ODbL is sufficiently flexible for possible
licence
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload
their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users
should not be required to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some
new users will be shuned
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:18:41PM +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/11/16 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au:
Maybe I missed something, but when were the decisions made?
back in 2008
The decisions had to be “the current licence is not suitable, we should
find something more
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:28:05AM -0700, Kai Krueger wrote:
There appear to be some interesting thoughts about this in the most recent
LWG meeting minutes ( https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk )
in the Contributor Terms Revision section:
e.g.
If you want to import data
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:59:19AM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed?
Yes, hence why I said this (highlighting added):
I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
terms. *There is a very small amount*, but OSMF
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:30:44AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote:
I think this is slightly ignoring the fact that the CT are the result
of compromises, and were developed over quite some time before being
rolled out.
I believe some of the issues being mentioned now were being mentioned
since the
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against
the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a
licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with
the licence change.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
Obviously those who
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […]
Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against
if
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:48:22AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […]
Yes
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote:
1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus?
OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else?
Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or
minority
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:40:32AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:41:16AM +, Jane Smith wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
Production.
We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Someone
in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and
someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Chris Browet wrote:
As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open:
- with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork
their data (or is only
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:40:23AM +0200, Nic Roets wrote:
Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an
idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing
their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law,
contract
The second clause grants “OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
copyright over anything within the Contents. It has been debated that
this is even necessary already, so I’m not going to start on that…
What I would like
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:04:01AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
So I don't think setting a minimum attribution level is a good idea,
at least from a user freedom point of view.
I agree. I mentioned a minimum attribution because others seem to want
that. The LWG and/or OSMF only seem to be
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 06:56:15PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and
*specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in
order to make *clear* what you want
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
We can do the license change now because it is the right thing to do,
or we can do the license change now and make future license changes
simpler for future OpenSteetMap communities.
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves
quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and
distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in
ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by
orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand
in any way over and above the
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:20:18AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can
you give examples for using and distributing individual contents
that way?
Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any,
because
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:29:19AM -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs:
There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself.
Actually, section 3 will make it harder
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:03:37AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike
long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap.
I think most problems currently with the CT is because
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +0200, Chris Browet wrote:
If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be?
Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and
moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating Talk, whose topic is
not obvious?
Then people who
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:36:18PM +0200, Chris Browet wrote:
Is this moderating stuff all about the license change?
No, that’s just the current example.
If so, and I know others agree, it should certainly NOT be moderated on
Talk.
I disagree. (Although, seeing as there is call for an
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:01:02PM +0100, 80n wrote:
The license change is the biggest single issue facing OSM at this time.
There are frequently complaints that people have not been aware that it was
happening. Shunting it off to legal-talk@ could be construed as a way of
helping the process
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Yup. But then again, by the time data has lapsed it is very likely
to be utterly useless. I am 99% certain that in 10 years time you
*will*, for most use cases, be able to get data that is more current
than OSM and has less
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:22:22AM -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process
should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're
involved in?
agree 99% with all of this posting and the only part is this.
Post count was one metric in the video SteveC linked yesterday. I
don't think using that as the sole measure of a contributor would be
reasonable.
That wasn’t the sole metric in the video, and neither did I think Steve
suggested that it should be _the_ metric either. I can see that people
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:05:25AM +0100, Andy Allan wrote:
self control common sense advice from peers guidelines
policies 'official' warnings interventions backstop
What we've come to recently is the final five steps have been pretty
much non-existent, and things have broken down
You guys obviously didn't read Steve C's post at 10/08/2010 19:13.
Please read the full thread before posting.
Err, would that be the one where he merely said “interesting statistics”
and didn’t state any conclusion?
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:29:31PM +0100, Andy Allan wrote:
Finally, I think that although the big issues are demonstrating that
we have a problem, it's all the little things that are most wearing.
So my concrete suggestion, is for someone more eloquent than me to
make a handful of
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:29:26PM +0100, steve brown wrote:
I've drafted a potential OpenStreetMap Community Conduct page -
would people suggest any changes?
I would include the wiki in last section, and move the licence text to
the bottom.
And more importantly, to all people who have
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:50:26PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate
list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I think that
will be super helpful.
I think this
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:04:00PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
guidelines per mailing list too […]
I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have
its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 04:20:02PM -0500, Ian Dees wrote:
“Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the
list”?
Could it specify where to find the guidelines?
It could, but shouldn’t become another list of mailing lists, we already
have two.
Simply saying guidelines
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 05:29:36PM +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
A common mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted.
Views? Precedents?
Well, you can steal my food, and if you’re careful I might not notice
the odd loaf of bread go missing. I might notice, and attribute it to
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 02:24:03PM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
I'm a little surprised that there has been no flame^Wdiscussion about
the order of the buttons yet, as the UI designers always observe that
the defaults is always what 90% of users will choose.
You started it… :P
I thought
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:39:43AM -0400, Anthony wrote:
If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
license change make their own coastline, on the dev server.
I want to be seeing coastlines as good as these:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:42:35PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only,
have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you
suggest that they should not have a choice?
Not arguing against people having a choice, but I
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:17:13PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
Except that in many jurisdictions, true PD doesn't exist like in France,
where you cannot remove the moral right of someone even if you sold your
rights.
For what it’s worth, you can’t actually remove moral rights in the UK
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:11:46AM +, Ed Avis wrote:
However I'd like to point out that 'ground survey' versus 'OS' is a false
dichotomy. Firstly the existing OSM topology is not always from ground
surveys.
More often than not it will be a trace from Yahoo aerial imagery. Secondly,
how
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:55:17AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members -
among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process,
including the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89%
majority in December last year. You
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers
are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should.
Simon
--
A complex system
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the
contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given
with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they
didn't
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:43AM +1000, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the
mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a
reference or an example to follow.
Why do we need contract law at all?
I know
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0200, SteveC wrote:
wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
have been in vein exactly?
I think
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:55:42PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
agree with ODBL (as it
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:31:42PM +0100, Graham Jones wrote:
It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.
I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:32:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there
are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial
imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's
include their data without them
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:26:57AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
licenses?
I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying that nobody
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:18:45PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
In principle I understand what your saying agree to some extent;
except that I think it's incorrect to assume that on ground
surveying is necessarily more accurate. GPS tracks are prone to
being sent off course by the surroundings such
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
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
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 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
I just added a comment to the talk page about OS Opendata[1]: It seems
that some people have been using OS Opendata to “correct” existing data,
moving ways to match OS Opendata, and in some cases removing attributes
(such as surface=paved).
Please, please, please, pretty please don’t just assume
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 Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:13:07PM +0100, 80n wrote:
The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project
is to fork it.
How about we do the significant changes and anyone unhappy with them can
fork it? That works too.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more
than obvious I'm bucking the trend...
Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so
vocal… ;)
Simon
--
A complex system that works is
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:14:46PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
And that's where the fear comes in, just because you may have good
intentions doesn't mean that it won't harm my goals.
Did you think there would be no losers? The project can’t please
everyone. If you care that much, why not
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated
Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem
with the license. Unfortunately people thought that because laws about
rights to data
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:08:07AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
At this stage I'm against the process, not the new license, but of
course you completely missed what my motivation is, which is making an
informed determination if the loss is acceptable or not, if it isn't
and ODBL still goes ahead
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Notice the absence of any or later clause here. This means that if
ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we
would have to go through the whole 2/3 of active members have to
accept poll to upgrade.
I don’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
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 01:36:09AM +0100, I wrote:
Getting people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t
agree because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in
my opinion.
The project needs to understand the consequences of a license change,
this one or any future
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:46:09PM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
wrote:
I do not know why, but this email (12 days old) has only just popped up in
my Inbox. Perhaps it was stuck in the ether and that is why there are only
a few responses to the Doodle.
I cleared some mail that
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:35:42AM +0100, Martin - CycleStreets wrote:
I'm not sure I quite understand the objection to tracing over other
data that OSM can legally and ethically use (though can appreciate
David Earl's point of view).
There is no objection to tracing over other data, but an
With all of the current excitement over OS OpenData, I have been
thinking about how tracing, imports, etc, affect what data is actually
surveyed.
In my mind, I’m preferring having a project where data is obtained
purely from ground survey, other projects dealing with other sources of
data, and
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 03:37:39AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
From what I understand, in the UK postcodes refer to a street, at
least in populated areas...
More usually one side of a street. They can refer to a small
residential area, one or both sides of a street, or a single large
building.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote:
Interesting. That is a lower figure than I personally was envisioning when we
made the above definition, and therefore potentially disenfranchising of
genuine OSM community. Perhaps we should review it, 3 calendar months in the
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 06:49:37AM -0500, Rob Myers wrote:
Unless that is the only way of ensuring that everyone continues to have the
advantage of effectively all rights to the data and that organisation is
OSM. ;-)
Well, yes, so why isn’t OSM just going PD (or near equivalent)? :)
(Yes, I
1 - 100 of 253 matches
Mail list logo
