_my_ first and second paragraphs? there was only one from me. Maybe what I wrote was too concise. My point is that currently one needs to import; otherwise it's not routable. Combining at rendering time doesn't cut it.
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > So a road-network in OSM based on OS information would have value as it > would enable OSM's use as a map source for a routing product. > > Your first and second paragraphs are therefore inconsistent, unless you > don't think a routeable map from OSM would be a good thing. > > As with any community we all have differing views. What is important in my > eyes is that (a) the LWG and OSMF take the overall community's view into > account and the members disregard any personal view, and (b) that there is a > very clear (and legally sound) description of the effect of the new licence > when the time comes to vote so we can make an informed decision which way to > vote based on the effect it will have. > > Kevin > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Barabanov <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:18:56 > To: Licensing and other legal discussions.<[email protected]> > Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
