On 02/02/11 18:58, Rob Myers wrote:
On 02/02/2011 06:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the
map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements
are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use
OSM.
That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't
simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply
On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 02/02/11 18:00, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net
wrote:
On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements
are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use
OSM.
That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't
simply wish away
On 02/03/2011 10:13 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent.
BY-SA is not a permissive or gift economy licence, it is a copyleft
licence. Its intent is precisely to ensure that the freedom to use the
work is inalienable.
Making it impossible
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote:
I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license.
Mine is that the license is
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements
are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use
OSM.
That's as
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
I've always understood that the intent of the
ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it.
Whose intent are we talking about,
