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 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 09/03/2010 10:03 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
terms. There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as
close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a
significant change.
If anyone can suggest a way
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 created the current version of CT think that it is
a good idea,
Hi,
On 3 September 2010 20:32, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
That poll is a bit misleading because there are two potential problems
with imports. One is the relicensing clause, but the other is the
That's true, but the poll shows the point (to the extent that polls
can show anything) that
Hi,
andrzej zaborowski 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 created the current version of CT think that it is
a good idea, and Frederik thinks so too and is very vocal
Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed?
Have fun,
Steve | stevecoast.com
On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:03 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
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
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote:
The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL
lobby
shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with
previously thoughtful people
Am 02.09.2010 09:49, schrieb Florian Lohoff:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:55:15PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Um, no, just all the smart people are kind of bored by you and your friends
so we don't participate in the mindless circular 'debates' you engender any
more. So all we have left on the list is
On 01/09/10 22:55, SteveC wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote:
The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby
shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with
previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on
announcement, which I
believe specifically concerned talk@, all OSM lists are unmoderated. As
legal-talk admin I merely look after occasional housekeeping on the list; I
don't moderate or filter the content.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Noise-vs
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 veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:39:11 +0100, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org 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
On 09/02/2010 12:55 PM, TimSC wrote:
The question I was asking was primarily about HOW we reach that
consensus, which you did not address. If you had specifically answered
my questions, it would have helped.
My understanding (such as it is) of how OSM works comes from having
watched it
Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/02/2010 12:55 PM, TimSC wrote:
The question I was asking was primarily about HOW we reach that
consensus, which you did not address. If you had specifically answered
my questions, it would have helped.
My understanding (such as it is) of how OSM works comes from having
- Original Message -
From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On 09/02/2010 04:16 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
There was some
discussion on how the group
On 09/02/2010 04:16 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
There was some
discussion on how the group wanting to move should be measured, by
number of people, by number of edits/contributions possibly only
measured over a certain period, but AFAIK no consensus has been reached
there.
The idea is that people
On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Liz wrote:
The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby
shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with
previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others,
mostly claiming that they
Well we try to answer questions as quickly as possible. Some answers
depend on further meetings, others depend on replies from busy
professionals. Some answers get lost in the mundane reality of day to
day life.
Here are a couple of answers for questions that were asked a few weeks
back. Not
On 09/01/2010 10:17 PM, Liz wrote:
1. From where does OSMF get the mandate to choose the licence? OSMF mandate is
to own and run the servers . I got that from the OSMF website.
The OSMF's Memorandum of Association, which is the legal expression of
the Foundation's purpose, states:
3. The
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be
treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one
way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling
should be considered
The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby
shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with
previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others,
mostly claiming that they are making personal attacks.
So
1. From where
25 matches
Mail list logo
