Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
Kevin, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: (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. I don't know how long you have been following the process, but the vote is long past. Members of the OSMF have had such a vote last year and agreed to go ahead with the new license. The switch to ODbL is already decided; further votes are not planned. All mappers will be asked to agree to the Contributor Terms, thereby effectively agreeing to the relicensing. At that point they have the option to not agree, in which case OSMF will stop distributing their data; but this is not a vote, just an individual opt-in. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
I thought I had read that there would be a second phase vote at the time of switch over based on a full understanding of data loss and effect. I can't now find that reference so I may have imagined it. What is happening with the revisions to the CTs? Will we have to accept/decline again? I have accepted the first version, but aren't they now changing? Kevin --Original Message-- From: Frederik Ramm To: ke...@cordina.org.uk To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 1 Oct 2010 08:37 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license Kevin, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: (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. I don't know how long you have been following the process, but the vote is long past. Members of the OSMF have had such a vote last year and agreed to go ahead with the new license. The switch to ODbL is already decided; further votes are not planned. All mappers will be asked to agree to the Contributor Terms, thereby effectively agreeing to the relicensing. At that point they have the option to not agree, in which case OSMF will stop distributing their data; but this is not a vote, just an individual opt-in. Bye Frederik Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
Hi, sorry for replying a little late, I'm not up to date, On 28 September 2010 21:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: Which would be true if I had the technical ability to render the data. I don't. However, some kind soul has written a renderer for OSM data that does it for me. See, that's exactly the problem we're having. There's this nice data set which I'd like rendered/on my Garmin/... but sadly I don't know how to process that sanely. Let's just import into OpenStreetMap because once it is there, I automatically get nice maps. OSM is not the we render anything for you because you can't do it yourself project. Statements like yours above make me even more determined to say no to imports - you openly admit that you have no desire in actually maintaining the data, you just want to use OSM as a giant rendering engine. That's really sad. You're really making no sense, sorry. If there is a street which is not in OpenStreetMap, but its data is avaiable from a compatible source then let's add it. If there's nothing better available than GPS to capture the geometry then let's use that, although likely it will be lower quality. The only reason people are adding data to OSM is because they want a complete map they can realiably use for routing, rendering and many more, often innovative, uses. Missing data in OSM is a very good (perhaps the only?) reason to add data to OSM, and this is exactly what Kevin did. What is your use case that you prefer a less complete map? It's not like he wanted a imaginary map for his computer game and abused OSM, he wanted something that OSM is supposed to be, a map of the Earth. He used the right tool to get what he wanted, at the same time helping all the other people who also need a map. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
What was the original vote deciding? What version of ODbl or ODbl + CT or ODbl + CT (current version)? I assume I needed to be a member of OSMF to have been included in the vote. I noticed there are 265 members. The vote was 89% yes from 55% of members. Here is a copy of the human-readable summery that the vote appears to be on. This is a human-readable summary of the ODbL 1.0 license. Please see the disclaimer below. You are free: * To Share: To copy, distribute and use the database. * To Create: To produce works from the database. * To Adapt: To modify, transform and build upon the database. As long as you: * Attribute: You must attribute any public use of the database, or works produced from the database, in the manner specified in the ODbL. For any use or redistribution of the database, or works produced from it, you must make clear to others the license of the database and keep intact any notices on the original database. * Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of this database, or works produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted database under the ODbL. * Keep open: If you redistribute the database, or an adapted version of it, then you may use technological measures that restrict the work (such as DRM) as long as you also redistribute a version without such measures. Disclaimer This is not a license. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the ODbL 1.0 - it is a human-readable expression of some of its key terms. This document has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license. Read the full ODbL 1.0 license text for the exact terms that apply. Shouldn't there be another vote if any conditions have changed since the first vote? I would have thought this would be mandatory. markus -Original Message- From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of ke...@cordina.org.uk Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 6:22 PM To: Frederik Ramm; Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license I thought I had read that there would be a second phase vote at the time of switch over based on a full understanding of data loss and effect. I can't now find that reference so I may have imagined it. What is happening with the revisions to the CTs? Will we have to accept/decline again? I have accepted the first version, but aren't they now changing? Kevin --Original Message-- From: Frederik Ramm To: ke...@cordina.org.uk To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Sent: 1 Oct 2010 08:37 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license Kevin, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: (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. I don't know how long you have been following the process, but the vote is long past. Members of the OSMF have had such a vote last year and agreed to go ahead with the new license. The switch to ODbL is already decided; further votes are not planned. All mappers will be asked to agree to the Contributor Terms, thereby effectively agreeing to the relicensing. At that point they have the option to not agree, in which case OSMF will stop distributing their data; but this is not a vote, just an individual opt-in. Bye Frederik Sent from my BlackBerryR wireless device ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:37:14 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I don't know how long you have been following the process, but the vote is long past. Members of the OSMF have had such a vote last year and agreed to go ahead with the new license. The switch to ODbL is already decided; further votes are not planned. I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? OSMF is a small set of persons and is not representative of OSM as a community. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 10/01/2010 10:38 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? The vote. OSMF is a small set of persons and is not representative of OSM as a community. Any representational or governing body will be a small set of persons. Depending on which sense of representative you are using, the vote rings true given my experience of OSM debates around licencing and OSMF is as open and responsible or more so than other Free projects. Anyone can join OSMF. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 01/10/10 11:01, Rob Myers wrote: On 10/01/2010 10:38 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? The vote. That is effectively an admission that you don't have a mandate from the contributors because the vote was only of OSMF members, not of the OSM project generally. Any representational or governing body will be a small set of persons. Depending on which sense of representative you are using, the vote rings true given my experience of OSM debates around licencing and OSMF is as open and responsible or more so than other Free projects. The OSMF may support the community, but it doesn't represent the community. For them to be representative, there would have to be some direct accountability to mapping contributors and I don't see any mechanism in place for that. Anyone can join OSMF. How is that relevant to OSMF having a mandate? TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:01:12 +0100 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 10/01/2010 10:38 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? The vote. OSMF is a small set of persons and is not representative of OSM as a community. Any representational or governing body will be a small set of persons. Depending on which sense of representative you are using, the vote rings true given my experience of OSM debates around licencing and OSMF is as open and responsible or more so than other Free projects. Anyone can join OSMF. - Rob. The vote is not a mandate. It is a vote of a subset of persons. Being a member of the OSM community is not a condition of belonging to OSMF. Not everyone can join OSMF. Joining is restricted to persons with enough spare cash to pay a fee in Pounds Sterling, access to a system for international money transfer if not in the UK, and a number of other practical points dependent on UK law - I would expect that minors are not supposed to be voting members of a UK company. The ability to manage well in written English would be a practical requirement. To pick an obvious example, the persons who mapped Nigerian slums are unlikely to have the financial resources to join. Most students don't have such resources. I would not expect the students involved in mapping ShimlaPuri to have the financial resources. OSMF was set up for a particular purpose. Because responsibility for the servers implies responsibility for the contents, the extension was made to the licence. OSMF extended itself this privilege, not the OSM community. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the licence for the data which they've contributed[1]. What OSMF does have, though, is a mandate to host whatever it likes at openstreetmap.org, because it's the owner of the domain name: ~/OpenStreetMap/potlatch2: whois openstreetmap.org [snip] Domain Name:OPENSTREETMAP.ORG Created On:09-Aug-2004 18:47:25 UTC whois Registrant Organization:OpenStreetMap Foundation ...just as I can host whatever I like at systemeD.net or geowiki.com, Frederik can host whatever he likes at geofabrik.de, John can host whatever he likes at evilbunny.org, and so on. OSMF has determined, through decisions taken by the elected board and through a plebiscite of its members, that it would like to host an ODbL+CT dataset at openstreetmap.org, subject to such a dataset being viable. That does not change the licence of the data. Only the rights-holders[1] can do that. Regardless of whether any given rights-holder decides to additionally offer their data under ODbL+CT, the existing data is still available under CC-BY-SA and you can host it anywhere you like, e.g. at fosm.org. But it's OSMF's choice as to what happens at openstreetmap.org. Richard [1] insofar as rights exist etc. etc. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5590900.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 03:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the licence for the data which they've contributed[1]. I agree with what you are writing here. It is of course not what Frederick is writing, in which he clearly states that the licence is changing. I am then told I can agree with the CTs. But I disagree with the ODbL - where do I get a chance to agree or not agree to sign up to that? The OSMF vote did not include the CTs in the current form. I really thought that it was just about the licence, and that the CTs were still in alpha format at the time.(of course, whether they have reached beta yet is a matter for discussion). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 01/10/10 11:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the licence for the data which they've contributed[1]. My mind is slightly boggled by you stating OSMF doesn't have a mandate, contrary to OSMF's claims. I guess you are conflating the legal right for license change with the mandate. They really are separate things. Anyway, the planned relicensing doesn't confer a mandate. It only asks about an individual's contribution, not about the direction of the project. What OSMF does have, though, is a mandate to host whatever it likes at openstreetmap.org, because it's the owner of the domain name: Ownership of something doesn't imply a mandate to change it. One is a legal concept, the other is political. OSMF has determined, through decisions taken by the elected board and through a plebiscite of its members, that it would like to host an ODbL+CT dataset at openstreetmap.org, subject to such a dataset being viable. You didn't mention OSMF having to consult the contributors, which makes this mandate questionable at best. We are talking about governance of the OSM project. Legitimacy of governing bodies, in some people's view, comes from consent of the governed. Without that consent, there is no mandate. It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the mailing list! On 01/10/10 12:04, Rob Myers wrote: OSMF would not be competent if it ignored the problems with the licence. It would be failing in its duty. Where is the community mandate for that duty? The OSMF just assuming powers is what is at the core of the question of mandate. TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On 1 October 2010 21:04, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: You're joking. It's a few pints worth of money. Nice, just insult most people not in a first world nation, that sort of money is a months worth of wages (or more) to some... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
TimSC wrote: It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the mailing list! Seriously? You actually see this as some sort of trolling contest, trying to get a rise out of people because it's more fun? I've been taking part in the debate because I'm keen to see that OpenStreetMap has the best licence possible and the most high-quality geodata under that licence. I realise Liz has already posted elsewhere that she's aiming to be disruptive, but I hadn't realised that it was some form of sub-4chan concerted trolling expedition. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5591187.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 01/10/10 12:04, Rob Myers wrote: OSMF would not be competent if it ignored the problems with the licence. It would be failing in its duty. Where is the community mandate for that duty? The OSMF just assuming powers is what is at the core of the question of mandate. OSMF's creation moved OSM to a participatory governance structure. That's not an assumption of powers in the absence of a community mandate, that's giving more power to the community. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 01/10/10 13:43, Richard Fairhurst wrote: TimSC wrote: It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the mailing list! Seriously? Seriously, no. :) I was hinting at something else, and you have interpreted me in a way that I did not intend. I guess I should make myself clearer in future. I was jokingly suggesting that I was not trying to steer the discussion away from irrelevant points (like the ownership of the domain and the fact that the OSMF board is elected). But really I was trying to get people to talk about OSMF community engagement. Sorry my hint was not very obvious. The REAL reason I don't make that case is I don't believe its valid. But that is the best approach to demonstrating a mandate IMHO. Anyway, enjoying a discussing doesn't necessarily imply I am trying to troll the list. Please assume good faith. TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On Oct 1, 2010, at 6:43 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: TimSC wrote: It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the mailing list! Seriously? You actually see this as some sort of trolling contest, trying to get a rise out of people because it's more fun? I've been taking part in the debate because I'm keen to see that OpenStreetMap has the best licence possible and the most high-quality geodata under that licence. I realise Liz has already posted elsewhere that she's aiming to be disruptive, but I hadn't realised that it was some form of sub-4chan concerted trolling expedition. You must be new here... Personally I think it's time to consider kickbanning the trolls with the fake names. Half of them got booted from wikipedia it seems, so I don't see why we have to put up with it. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: At worst we have conflicting reports. I'll take legal advice over reported email comments in that case, though. That's fine for the half dozen (?) of you who have access to that legal advice. But for the tens of thousands of us who only have access to the conflicting legal advice... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Markus_g marku...@... writes: What was the original vote deciding? The vote, of OSMF members only, was on 'I approve the process' or 'I do not approve the process'. (Those were the two choices in the vote.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Personally I think it's time to consider kickbanning the trolls with the fake names. TimSC is a fake name? If so, what's SteveC? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Personally I think it's time to consider kickbanning the trolls with the fake names. TimSC is a fake name? If so, what's SteveC? Both are very easy to discover. Hell, you can even get my phone number from my website. The hint is in the signature. You on the other hand actively hide your real name, and the fact you were banned from wikipedia. Or would you like to correct me? And, also, when I questioned you about it on the 80n mailing list, he apparently moderated my post. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Personally I think it's time to consider kickbanning the trolls with the fake names. TimSC is a fake name? If so, what's SteveC? Both are very easy to discover. Hell, you can even get my phone number from my website. The hint is in the signature. You on the other hand actively hide your real name, and the fact you were banned from wikipedia. Or would you like to correct me? And, also, when I questioned you about it on the 80n mailing list, he apparently moderated my post. Steve, I assume you are referring to this mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork I've pasted your account settings below. As you can see your account is not moderated, and as far as I know, has never been moderated. We are very pleased to have you as a member of the group. *Nickname* SteveC *Email* steveco...@gmail.com - search for recent messages to this group http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork/search?q=author:steveco...@gmail.com *Joined* Thurs, Aug 26 2010 11:42 am *Subscription type* No Email - read this group on the web Email - send each message as it arrives Abridged Email - send a summary of new activity each day Digest Email - send all new messages in a single daily email *Membership type* Regular member - members can read the archives and post messages Manager - managers can approve pending messages and members and can change group settings Owner - group owners can remove the group in addition to changing all settings *Posting permission* Default group policy - Member is allowed to post Override - Member is allowed to post Override - Member is not allowed to post Override - Member's posts are moderated *Remove steveco...@gmail.com* - no longer allowed to post messages or read the archive - may not rejoin the group or apply for membership. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 05:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I realise Liz has already posted elsewhere that she's aiming to be disruptive, but I hadn't realised that it was some form of sub-4chan concerted trolling expedition. As the choices offered by some people seem to be limited to accept licence || leave OSM accept the views of group X || trolling and as I am substantially older than the majority of you, I know that the world is not black and white, and that consensus is possible, even at this stage in the argument. Disruption can be the passive resistance of Mahatma Ghandi or the fire-bombing tactics of IRA (I guess my choices here show my age). Certainly continuing to ask questions which are relevant and which don't get answered is disruptive, because it forces people to stop what they are doing and answer, even though some of the answers I receive are immature and impolite. The data I have contributed (by ground survey, please note) will remain copyright to myself, and is not going to be included in the ODbL database. Would you kindly indicate how you are going to remove it? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 10/01/2010 11:28 PM, Anthony wrote: She's not going to delete her existing contributions from the current project, she's just not going to contribute them to the new project. There's a new project? How exciting! What's it called? - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
This message has gone OT. On 01/10/2010 19:38, SteveC wrote: Both are very easy to discover. Hell, you can even get my phone number from my website. What do you want, a medal? The hint is in the signature. You on the other hand actively hide your real name, And how does that detract from a persons argument? Broadcasting the fact you think a contributor, who disagrees with you, should be banned purely because they have a nickname is: petty/puerile/childish/insecure/inept/pompous/arrogant Please, take your pick. But above all, it's irrelevant. The fact I still haven't had a definitive answer to my simple question (I was the OP) without caveats being added (even by you) only proves that there's an argument/discussion to be made. I can't make an informed decision about which way I should go until I have concrete evidence about what will happen with the data, in all it's forms, that I have added. Steve, you should take a step back look at the whole scenario. Cheers Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 01/10/2010 23:53, Grant Slater wrote: On 1 October 2010 23:40, andrzej zaborowskibalr...@gmail.com wrote: The people who drafted the CT are not very keen on discussing the CT here otherwise, so this may be the only way to let them know and exercise some democracy in the project. I am not the most wordy person in the world. I've never expected an LWG member to be verbose. As I said in my OP: As I'm a simple lad, can I ask any replies to be a clear, concise factual as possible please. All I've ever wanted was categorical, non caveat answers. After all this time that the LWG has been discussing this subject, I'm still unable to receive an objective answer. I find that disappointing. Some just seem to enjoy arguing, draining goodwill and have stated they are here to be politely disruptive. The vast majority just want the truth. When are we going to get it? regards Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On 1 October 2010 21:55, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Would you kindly indicate how you are going to remove it? Discussion on handling how to measure 'clean feed' data was started here: (same problem) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html There is also some minor addition discussion in the previous weeks minutes 3rd Aug 2010: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_74fzvpnxds Jim* is also waiting on the publishing of the ODbL accepts list like these rest of us. LWG received permission to publish the list from the OSMF Board in the last week. * = Jim as a member of the foundation asked to join the LWG. LWG discussed on 13th July call and his request was accepted. https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_2hnm5xwcp He hasn't yet been able to attend many calls. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
On Oct 1, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: This message has gone OT. On 01/10/2010 19:38, SteveC wrote: Both are very easy to discover. Hell, you can even get my phone number from my website. What do you want, a medal? Yes please. The hint is in the signature. You on the other hand actively hide your real name, And how does that detract from a persons argument? Because if someone is continually trolling, which is what's happening it isn't a mere disagreement, then it's highly relevant that the person was kicked out of the largest crowd sourced project for doing the same thing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license
Thank you. Regards, Markus_g -Original Message- From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ed Avis Sent: Saturday, 2 October 2010 2:58 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp;amp; the new license Markus_g marku...@... writes: What was the original vote deciding? The vote, of OSMF members only, was on 'I approve the process' or 'I do not approve the process'. (Those were the two choices in the vote.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
