Anthony,
I realise no analogy is perfect. In this case a problem is that if somebody
breaks into the OSM data, he is not depriving the previous owners of it. And
it is
an Open street map after all - we're *inviting* people into the house!
By the way I'm not sure why Copyright law is the big
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.auwrote:
Anthony,
I realise no analogy is perfect. In this case a problem is that if somebody
breaks into the OSM data, he is not depriving the previous owners of it.
And it is an Open street map after all - we're *inviting*
Brendan Morley wrote:
All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no
real-world exploits.
I understand that actual exploits would make the problem more obvious,
but I find the underlying logic questionable nevertheless.
No one has broken into my house for 5 years
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Brendan Morley wrote:
All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no
real-world exploits.
I understand that actual exploits would make the problem more obvious,
but I find the underlying
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 14:55, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Good analogy, actually. ODbL is the fancy million dollar lock (which is
brand new and has been tested much less than your previous $50 one).
Copyright law is the big huge window sitting next to the locked door.
If you'd like to
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 14:55, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Good analogy, actually. ODbL is the fancy million dollar lock (which is
brand new and has been tested much less than your previous $50 one).
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:39:13 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been
re-
edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray
At 09:24 PM 6/12/2009, morb@beagle.com.au wrote:
Quoting Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from
people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the
contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We really, really, really, like to keep your and everyone's edits going
forward. But we have to respect your choice. Under the current regime, you
are allowing your contributions to be used only under CC BY SA 2.0. We
Anthony osm at inbox.org writes:
What about dual licensing under CC-BY-SA and ODbL? That way you can keep the
CC-BY-SA contributions.Of course, it doesn't make much sense, because the whole
point of ODbL is that it's more restrictive than CC-BY-SA.
It makes a little bit of sense: the ODbL does
Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
As Ulf Lamping said, it will be a gun on your head in Feb.
Pieren schrieb:
Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
As Ulf Lamping said, it will be a gun on
Hi,
Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD.
Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. Download only PD
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Sebastian Hohmann m...@s-hohmann.de wrote:
I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD.
Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
Unless there is a
2009/12/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
I missed an option
And I would like that people reading this thread forwards and
translates this call to other local lists for the widest polling as
possible. Unfortunately, the licence itself is not (yet) translated.
Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
Cheers
As far as I understood (but some
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not
change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some
share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more
relaxed way (and
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Hi,
Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD.
Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
Unless there is a mechanisim in
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
is CC-BY-SA owned
Pieren schrieb:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
Cheers
As far as I
2009/12/6 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject
the new licence, the data will remain anyway if you, the last
contributor in the history of this element accepts the new
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ouch!
So I can write a small script that touches every element in the OSM database
to own the copyright of the whole database?!?
Well, that's certainly not my understanding of copyright!
Regards, ULFL
No, Matt
Hi!
Pieren schrieb:
Therefore, I would like to know what you, the contributor, thinks
today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll:
http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w
It is good that there is a general poll of opinion. This is something
the OSMF should have
Pieren wrote:
Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition ?
In my
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Pieren wrote:
Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
2009/12/6 80n 80n...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Pieren wrote:
Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
only one then delete and recreate
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Using the object history is just an approximation based on the
assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are
improving existing data, and
their contributions must automatically be deleted? Given the large number of
contributors, it is a near certainty that some of them will have died by now.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
From :balr...@gmail.com
Date :Sun Dec 06 12:28:50
Quoting Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from
people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the
contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going to
destroy too much of the database.
Wow, this
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, morb@beagle.com.au wrote:
Quoting Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from
people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the
contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been re-
edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray
If someone presents me with a boolean Do you allow relicensing under
the ODbL I'll have to say
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been
re-
edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray
If someone presents me with a boolean Do you allow
. -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:39:13
To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 22:32, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
By US law, this data is in and must remain in the public domain.
No, it must be in the public domain at the time of its release by the
US federal government but can be re-licensed later by anyone anywhere.
We've currently
35 matches
Mail list logo
