Simon Ward wrote:
> _I_ think this discussion is healthy, and will give people ideas on
> what
> to look out for when the licence is released.
Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that
perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several
months. As
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> You have quoted me out of context. Had you not removed the next
> part of
> the sentence, people would have known that I was just taking the, er,
> mickey ;-)
And to think that I was, as ever, deadly serious. Anyway, enough
frivolity, I've got some nodes to move.
cheer
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> If sets up his local copy of Potlach (the tool of
>> choice for such operations!) and randomly moves 1.000 Central London
>> nodes
>
> Could I point out that Potlatch doesn't let you select more than one
> object at once so, actually, JOSM would be the tool of ch
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If sets up his local copy of Potlach (the tool of
> choice for such operations!) and randomly moves 1.000 Central London
> nodes
Could I point out that Potlatch doesn't let you select more than one
object at once so, actually, JOSM would be the tool of choice.
Could I al
Dair Grant wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>>> b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database
>>> offered
>>>under this Licence, including any additional Data, that make
>>> up all the
>>>differences between the Database and the Derivative Database.
>
> Assuming I
>
> I'm tempted to say that if the data base is modified using some kind of
> original data input - from your GPS, from your company archives, from
> your Grandma's local knowledge - then ist has to be shared; if, on the
> other hand, you only apply algorithms or noise to it, then keep it an
> jus
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 05:44:23PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > You don’t know what use something is until someone does something
> > unexpected with it, and then you find that it is useful after all.
>
> That's right, while we're at it why don't we require that everyone who
> uses OSM data al
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Apart from this being pretty much useless to anybody
>
> You don’t know what use something is until someone does something
> unexpected with it, and then you find that it is useful after all.
That's right,
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Apart from this being pretty much useless to anybody
You don’t know what use something is until someone does something
unexpected with it, and then you find that it is useful after all.
A lot of free software was created to scratch
Hi,
Dair Grant wrote:
> Perhaps it's not worth treating the "translating the Database to a
> less-expressive form" case as different to any other modification case.
>
> But it does seem a bit like jumping through hoops, when it would be simpler
> to say "I truncated all coordinates to 4 decimal p
Hi,
bvh wrote:
> Is using google imagery for OSM ok for the areas where they allow
> mapmaker? Has anyone asked Ed that?
Yes but he sort of evaded that question.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876
> messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before.
Me too. ;-)
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
> Sent: 11 October 2008 09:50
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:17:50AM +0100, Richar
Thanks. I have taken a look at these useful links and added them to the
bottom of the licence page under 'external links'
This is starting to look more and more like a software licence to me!
Regards,
Peter
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bvh
> Sent: 11 October 2008 11:23
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial
> Imageryfor Public Domain Release
>
> On Sat, Oc
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 01:58:19AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> their aerial imagery from. - Ed Parsons once said that Google had to pay
> extra for "traceable" aerial imagery as the "normal" licenses would not
> have been suitable for using the material in an application like
> MapMaker. If no
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 07:39:24AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> Btw, can someone provide a link for a primer to the requirements for
> 'DSFG-compliance'
[DFSG]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[FAQ]: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Simon
--
A complex system that work
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:17:50AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has
> > already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests
> > used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>
> Could I ple
>> If someone forks the project then the fork should be able to
>> operate on exactly the same basis as the original project.
>
> On closer inspection, this will never be possible. If you fork OSM,
It's worth noting that it isn't possible to fork OSM on the same terms
at the moment, even keepi
19 matches
Mail list logo
