On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:28 PM, 80n wrote:
> Does CloudMade as a corporate body have an existing OSM account? I doubt it.
>
> How would a corporation indicate that their ODbL licensed derivative
> databases can be imported back into OSM?
An excellent question for the LWG. Can you now drop the da
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:57 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you've missed my point. Suppose I have some data that has been
> given to me under an ODbL license by a company. How can I determine whether
> or not I am allowed to import that data into OSM? What does that company
> have
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> On 23 July 2010 00:05, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is this the real CloudMade? How can we tell? And that really is the
> point.
> > How can anyone tell whether they can add someone else's work to OSM
> unless
> > there's some way o
On 23 July 2010 00:05, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is this the real CloudMade? How can we tell? And that really is the point.
> How can anyone tell whether they can add someone else's work to OSM unless
> there's some way of knowing that they've signed the contributor terms.
> How's this all
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:
>
>
> 80n wrote:
> >
> >> > Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have
> >> already
> >> signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to
> >> draw
> >> some conclusions about their intentions with our
80n wrote:
>
>> > Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have
>> already
>> signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to
>> draw
>> some conclusions about their intentions with our data.
> ...
> Does CloudMade as a corporate body have an existing OSM
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:48 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:45 PM, 80n wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) <
> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > Graham Jones wrote:
> > > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who woul
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:45 PM, 80n wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
> wrote:
> Graham Jones wrote:
> > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want
> > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking
> > at
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:42 PM, 80n wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Grant Slater
> wrote:
> On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. Experimental
> > forks are beginning to appear...
> >
>
> 80n, you were
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Graham Jones wrote:
> > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would
> want
> > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of
> looking
> > at it the p
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter.
> Experimental
> > forks are beginning to appear...
> >
>
> 80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork
Graham Jones wrote:
> I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want
> to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking
> at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that
> it will make negligible difference.
The ODbL
On 22 July 2010 20:45, Graham Jones wrote:
> I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want
> to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking
> at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that
> it will make negligib
I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want
to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking
at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that
it will make negligible difference.
I thought the sticking point was abou
On 22/07/10 19:24, Grant Slater wrote:
On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n<80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. Experimental
forks are beginning to appear...
80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork.
/ Grant.
Then he
On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. Experimental
> forks are beginning to appear...
>
80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork.
/ Grant.
___
Talk-GB
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Jason Cunningham wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to do this.
>
> Having read this a I've decided its about time I read up on licence issue!
> I guess that the potential loss of a lot of data could be a reason for some
> people voting against the changes
>
Th
Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Having read this a I've decided its about time I read up on licence issue! I
guess that the potential loss of a lot of data could be a reason for some
people voting against the changes
Jason
On 22 July 2010 10:34, TimSC wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> To try to get
Hi all,
To try to get a feeling for the potential consequences of relicensing, I
have been doing analysis of edits in the UK and how contributors have
voted on the doodle poll. I feel that we should look before we leap,
regarding the possible impact of people who refuse to relicense. I
wonder
19 matches
Mail list logo
