David wrote
Just a quick note that my understanding is those figures are generated
based on v1 history, none of the bot edits would have been v1 unless
they created a new entity, not just a new/modified tag.
David, you may be right although I took Richard's nodes last edited to
mean the latest
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL
(4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for
data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are
Well if
On 11/07/2011 10:13, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL
(4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for
data licensing, but it's likely that
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective
Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL
and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a)
of
On 11/07/2011 10:52, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective
Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL
and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective
Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL
and the
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at any of
the analysis done recently,
On 11 July 2011 20:05, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
What he's saying is there is no requirement under Australian Copyright
law (or CC licence) for a whole compilation/database/document to have
the same licence. It's the same way the Government can use Creative
Commons for
On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD
so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets...
Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do something like render tiles
within the .au boundaries from one database,
On 11 July 2011 20:53, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD
so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets...
Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
You're both a whole continent and
an island. There is therefore no reason why data users can't use FOSM for
Australia and OSM for the rest of the world - and even combine the two into
one dataset.
CC-BY-SA doesn't
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:53 AM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD
so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets...
Because they were mixing the datasets. If
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote:
Are you
Anyway, I think what Richard is trying to say is this:
1) Create osm-without-australia.osm by removing australia from the
OSMF database.
2) Create fosm-australia-only.osm by removing everything but australia
from the FOSM database (for both of these extracts, use a boundary
definition that's PD.
David Groom wrote:
Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these
are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued.
No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work
(CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work
(CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or Work.
Depends on how you combine them. If you just put the files next to
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work
(CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or Work.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote:
Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these
are derivative
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote:
But as I said earlier, the ODbL seems quite clear that you cant make
a Collective
David Groom wrote:
Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a
derivative database
Which you are doing, as part of a Collective Database. Incorporating a
Derivative Database into a Collective Database does not absolve you of
ODbL's requirements, or remove its freedoms, for
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at
any of the analysis done recently, Australia simply hasn't taken to
ODbL+CT in the way that other countries have.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
[snip]
So, I think, we need to get away from this idea that a fork is a bad thing.
It isn't. There are
On 11/07/11 00:02, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
So please, let's stop hitting each other over the head with this.
That's a very unAustralian attitude.
John H
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
On 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Germany 90.1%
Great Britain 89.1%
France 96.8%
North America 96.4%
Russia 97.2%
Australia 48.4%
You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate, nor did
you comment
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Germany 90.1%
Great Britain 89.1%
France 96.8%
North America 96.4%
Russia 97.2%
Australia 48.4%
You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate,
On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not
sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have
particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major import we've
ever
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not
sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have
particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major
On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and
making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
knocking the other one?
But my comment before sets the scene for how OSM-F
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and
making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
knocking the other one?
But my comment before sets the
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects,
and
making them as attractive as possible to users
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 15:02 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
I guess that depends on your definition of reconciled.
It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look
On Jul 10, 2011, at 6:22 PM, David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when
On 11 July 2011 11:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
We looked around for all the people claiming that we've been ignoring them
and can't actually find any posts by them on the legal lists or to the LWG
for many of the people involved. Of course, with so many fake names being
used
On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
You keep making the same mistakes, and of course nothing is being
resolved because you stick your head in the sand and try and pretend
it will just magically take care of itself, all you are achieving
lately is showing how arrogant you can be and
On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
It's not worth my time responding to messages like this.
I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things
we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better.
Yes and didn't respond to a single
On 11 July 2011 12:42, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
It's not worth my time responding to messages like this.
I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining
On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:45 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 12:42, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
It's not worth my time responding to messages like this.
I wrote a
I have only rarely made contributions to this list and never to the legal or LWG lists because I prefer to do things rather than talk about it. I have been contributing to OSM for over 5 years and, last I looked, I was about 800th in number of nodes and ways edited world wide. These
Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
I didn't, you are correct. I said I would however, if it was an email
assuming good faith and free of personal attacks. This is common is western
societies. Or at least polite societies :-)
Calling people trolls and puppets doesn't demonstrate an
[SNIP] Flames [/SNIP]
Hi, Sorry to get involved in this discussion. But it has been filling up my
inbox again.
Besides all the flames and smoke, what are the real issues here? I think
that we dont need to continue this endless discussion. Lets just stop the
fighting and do something more
On 11 July 2011 14:53, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can we make a list of real issues to be resolved and stick with them. There
are some issues that wont be resolved, such as hurt feelings and lost trust.
But we dont need to have a fight to the death over them.
I'd like
Mark wrote
Out of interest - the greatest contributor to Australia-Oceania
according to http://odbl.de/australia-oceania.html is the accound used
for the suburb boundary / postcode boundary import. Once this is
excluded, does the figure for Australia improve a lot or only
marginally? (Is there
On 11 July 2011 15:09, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark wrote
Out of interest - the greatest contributor to Australia-Oceania
according to http://odbl.de/australia-oceania.html is the accound used
for the suburb boundary / postcode boundary import. Once this is
excluded, does
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 06:53 +0200, Mike Dupont wrote:
Besides all the flames and smoke, what are the real issues here? I
think that we dont need to continue this endless discussion. Lets just
stop the fighting and do something more productive.
I think a main issue here, comes down to what
Hi Nick,
Just a quick note that my understanding is those figures are generated
based on v1 history, none of the bot edits would have been v1 unless
they created a new entity, not just a new/modified tag.
David
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 15:09 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote:
Hi Mark,
Yes if we
On 11 July 2011 15:19, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
That takes care of ways, but what about the 1.7million nodes attributed to me?
Sorry, that was total objects, only a pitiful 437k nodes.
___
Talk-au mailing list
52 matches
Mail list logo
