Excuse me for yet again resend, but legal list requires subscription
and I have not expected to have to deal with it in the past.
Some typos corrected and reasons clarified.
Hello Pavel,
On Saturday 31 March 2012 17:03:28 Pavel Machek wrote:
Ahoj!
Zdravím Pavla a ostatní přispěvatele z Čech,
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
Hi!
So lets start by saying that I don't like ODbL and I hate CT.
There are three classes of data I uploaded to osm:
a) Hand created data, most important paths in the woods. CT+ODbL, is
okay for those.
b) ODbL compatible -
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
So lets start by saying that I don't like ODbL and I hate CT.
There are three classes of data I uploaded to osm:
a) Hand created data, most important paths in the woods. CT+ODbL, is
okay for those.
b) ODbL compatible - mass imports. CT+ODbL is okay for
2012/4/2 Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xific...@gmail.com:
Hi,
I admit that I'm pretty confused right now... Are you saying that you've
changed your mind and are willing to agree to ODbL+CT, except for the
changesets containing imports of incompatible data? That would be really
great!
If this is
On 03/31/2012 01:25 PM, Darko Sokolić wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I contributed to OpenStreetMap under CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. It was great
pleasure, and I enjoyed it very much.
I did not accept new Contributor Terms and new license.
Also, I did not authorise anyone, in any way, to relicense or
Pavel Machek wrote:
If this is that case, I personally volunteer to help track down your
changesets containing the incompatible imports.
Thanks!
The only two are the wikipedia imports of places and railway stations,
is this correct?
I think so.
Hi,
I have just seen that Creative-Commons has released a first draft of their
new 4.0 license suit and thought it might be of interest to others on this
list. ( http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 )
The draft for 4.0 now explicitly licenses database rights and addresses
licensing of
