adca03156...@localhost
fca549be3ecf9d4cb8cb8576837ea4890a7...@zeus.cetest.local
Message-ID: 90c6e47a092dece1a7770a5cb6164...@localhost
X-Sender: li...@julius-net.net
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:39:46 +0100, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen
Hi Frederik,
I think the weak point here is the focus of ownership in individual
contributions. I rather liked it how the new CT/ODbL made it irrelevant
whether something was yours or mine.
Yes, making it irrelevant whether something was yours or mine is exactly
the key point here.
There
Hi Mike,
But I don't understand, If you are
going to change the CT that has been signed by all these people, don't
you have to ask them to sign the new version as well? or did they sign
the blank check already and have no say?
The License Working Group says that people who agreed to CT v.1.0
Hi,
On 11/26/10 13:13, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I am sure that each part of the thought experiment is allowed under the
current CT rules. Or do you see something that violates the CT?
Your thought experiment was built on OSMF *changing* the CT.
Now changing the CT doesn't violate the
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
b) Many people contribute to OpenStreetMap and would prefer a Public
Domain license.
[...]
I do not know, however, whether people in group b are interested in a
compromise or whether a fork of OpenStreetMap is seen as inevitable
anyway.
Plenty of PD
Hi Matthias,
The License Working Group says that people who agreed to CT v.1.0 will
be allowed to switch to the new CT rules, but they will be forced to do
so.
Not exactly. The LWG say that the new CT are a sub-set of CT 1.0. There
is no need for people to explicitly agree to that,
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
The LWG say that the new CT are a sub-set of CT 1.0.
They clearly are not, as of the 1.2 draft. Among other things, the
section 2 grants are expanded, to include database right or any
related right.
Hi Frederik,
Your thought experiment was built on OSMF *changing* the CT.
My thought experiment was based on being locked out of the server, being
unable to contribute, and thereby loosing the right to vote.
This is pure speculation. I think that very people will be so
short-sighted that
Maybe we should work on that bit then. Not give the individual an
opt-out right, but instead force OSMF to publish. Something like: As a
condition of this agreement, OSMF agrees not only to license the
database under the licenses given, but also to make the database
publicly available or so.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
No, a license cannot protect any work or restrict what one can do with the
work. It can only give permissions. Of course, these permissions might
have some conditions (like BY-SA). The protection comes from the law
Hi,
On 11/26/10 15:24, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
My thought experiment was based on being locked out of the server, being
unable to contribute, and thereby loosing the right to vote.
I agree that the CT currently seem to have no provision to make sure
that someone who *wants* to be an
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a
database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the
granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Picture yourself next to 100 people who
have come after you, who have taken what you have given to the project and
who have built on it, improved it, made it their project.
Do you *really* think it is right to say:
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb:
I know that this thought experiment is absurd. I generally trust the OSFM to
do the right thing. But I would be far more comfortable with being able to
opt-out of any license change that I consider problematic.
How do you think that can work in practice? We are
Hi,
On 11/26/10 16:24, Mike Dupont wrote:
Do you *really* think it is right to say: What's mine is mine, and if those
100 people in 10 years make any step that I don't like then I will withdraw
my work from under them?
please stop at this point.
We are not talking about withdrawing anything
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would sincerely ask
anyone who feels the desire to pull the rug from under the project's feet in
10 years time if the project doesn't do what one likes: please recosider,
and if you still cannot trust the project
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
How can we have the hubris to say we know what's best
for OSM in 10 years?
Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that.
On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future.
Anthony,
you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike
to which I replied:
On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote:
If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes
or blank check rules in there that involve trusting some unknown set
of people that can
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony,
you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike to
which I replied:
On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote:
If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes
or blank
19 matches
Mail list logo
