Hi,
On 01/06/12 13:13, Nick Hocking wrote:
Although the usefullness(or correctness) of these tags is not being
discussed in talk-au, there appears to be a concensus (7-0)
about removing them now.
Ok, I've discussed this off-list with Nick and did a test run for 1000
(of roughly a quarter mill
Hi,
On 01/06/12 12:08, Nick Hocking wrote:
"Is there a consensus in the Australian communitiy that these tags are
worthless and should be removed"
How many votes do I need :-)
Well, nobody shouting "stop, stop, these tags are useful to me!" would
already be a start.
I can see only two ways
Hi,
On 01/06/12 11:38, Nick Hocking wrote:
In this case it is essential to actually get rid of the maxspeed tags.
The bot used a completly wrong algorithm and the data is dangerously
wrong. Just today I drove down a high traffic road where OSM
(curtesy of the bot) had the wrong max speed).
It
ssumed to be dervied from whatever the decliner put
there.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
aic note to the mapper but not copyright on the interpretation of
that note made by someone else.
I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a
list with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how
many false positives/negatives we get.
B
Hi,
On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in the current version
Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the
tag name (individually or for a large number
(taking this to legal-talk)
Russ,
On 12/27/11 05:08, Russ Nelson wrote:
But this way is still marked as "created by a nodecision user":
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=3753605
Well, maybe it was created, but the sins of the father do not pass
onto the son. No part of what the nodecisio
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:32:35 +0100
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
...
Activated now & notified talk and talk-de lists, on both the WTFE view
and on the database accessed by plugins/license views in editors.
Bye
F
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 +
Dermot McNally wrote:
> 1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it
> 2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag
> 3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or
> she does not have enough information to assert the cuisine tag
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:32:21 +
Dermot McNally wrote:
> 1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly "tainted" node which
> has both been moved and stripped of any "tainted" tags would also be
> considered clean. Is this so
Yes.
> 2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped by an agr
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:27:19 -0500
Richard Weait wrote:
> - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
* treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapp
uary which was a bit over-optimistic!
I've fixed the configuration and the graphs are less euphemistic now.
They are meant to inform, not to manipulate.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 12/16/11 14:08, Steve Bennett wrote:
,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the
place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to "fix"
names?
Do we have any clear policy spelling out what constitutes "clean"?
No.
Presumably there are so
Hi,
On 12/16/11 12:12, Ed Avis wrote:
I guess "ct=clean" would be better since there may be data which is usable
under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL.
But are we interested in such data? I mean - if there *was* data not
usable under ODbL, then it would be a good idea to
Maning,
On 12/16/11 08:26, maning sambale wrote:
As what the subjects says, instead of removing and recreating tainted
data, I think it's best (in some cases) to revert to the last known
clean version.
This makes sense.
Sometimes you will not even have to revert to a "last known clean
versio
Hi,
I've added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_create
Hi,
On 12/08/2011 02:20 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
They produced a written report
I am intrigued by the joint authorship concept. If that was true
(relatively) universally, then we could perhaps use that to force even
those who haven't agreed to the license change to allow us (their
co-authors) to
Hi,
On 12/06/2011 11:16 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
Not that this is confidential, but this should have actually gone to the
LWG.
Happens to me all the time. Stupid auto-completion.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09"
Hi,
On 11/29/11 11:49, Ed Avis wrote:
I think you have to be careful about going too far with community norms.
Of course. They must not introduce new material, but they can be used to
clarify areas where things aren't crystal clear.
Community norms can serve to narrow the permission (as in
ensure share-alike.
If it can be circumvented then it fails one of its main purposes.
Oh, it does protect OSM's database all right, but drawing lines onto a
printed-out image is not making a derived database (and frankly I
wouldn't be all that interested in the geometry of tho
Hi,
On 11/28/11 11:58, 80n wrote:
That's a very fine line you are trying to draw.
Yes, I agree it is difficult. I think that it is entirely possible to
arrive at an identical end product through different processes, where
one process has different license implications than the other.
For e
Hi,
On 11/28/11 10:43, 80n wrote:
If you cannot reproduce the Produced Work 100% faithfully from the
Derived Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of
the information required to create the Produced Work?
It doesn't, and it doesn't have to. Only in so far as the *database
e the database
behind it. That, however, would have the consequence that you have to
share the image itself, which would not be the case under the "Produced
Works" provision.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
agree - let's rather invest a little
more work now and have a solid foundation for the future, than build on
sand just to get it done quicker.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
Hi,
On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by
decliners or non-responders.
That is correct as far as I know.
There is no contributor who has ever contributed even a 50% majority
of nodes on these routes. However, they wou
ntains the data to fill all
these "holes", this one being CC-By-SA licensed.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetma
Hi,
On 08/24/11 16:03, Simon Poole wrote:
I think I've said this before, but any way you look at it, there is a big
difference between TimSC and the US Census Bureau. I just can't
see how we could use a mappers data without some kind of assurance
that the mapper actually has the rights necessary
Hi,
Simon Poole wrote:
> With other words: please get a life.
+1
I'm tired of hearing how people have been "disenfranchised" and
"cannot continue to contribute" to OSM. They're talking as if they were
in a wheelchair and we had just built a giant staircase at OSMF
headquarters.
But the truth
eally is a superset of the CT
and will be accepted in lieu of those.
I'd love to sign such a declaration myself but with the amount of Bing
tracing I've done it would be difficult.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E00
Hi,
On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote:
You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the
transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not
"someone else's" benefit, but a benefit for the whole community.
I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Gert, you seem to be under the impression that the license change
process has somehow failed just because we're still handing out the
planet under CC-BY-SA. But you are wrong; this has always been the case.
Maybe that too, but I meant to write "this has a
y we'd lose too much data; we'd rather
patch things up *before* we switch. And this is not a recent change of
plans; it was always planned to wait until it is feasible to make the
switch. Personally, I expect it to happen in the first half of 2012 but
I have no LWG inside knowledg
Hi,
On 07/12/11 01:05, David Groom wrote:
Well that's what I asked to this list on 17 June [1] , and you will see
from the only answer received (which incendtally was from a member of
the LWG) that an except of an ODbL database will always be a Derivative
Database, and not an ODbL licensed datab
he alterations to the Database (such as an
algorithm)..." ie a file which contains all the alterations OR a file
which contains the method.
I don't think it matters but I dont't think it makes sense to require
that the method be described "in a file".
Bye
Fred
Simon,
Andreas,
all,
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the
pseudonym of "John Smith", keep in mind that he is spending a lot of
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap "fork".
The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of
motivations, the most be
(or I failed to mention explicitly)
that we are talking about nodes _that are used by a way_.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-ta
ercise judgement but there will always be an element of
judgement.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
2 is clearly a derived work of
version 1.
You could also say: no, because the information "added" in version 2
(new coordinates) overwrites all information that was there from version
1, so there is nothing left to be "protected".
Opinions?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frede
etation. Ok, so my PNG file was "intended" to extract the data.
It didn't work out in the end but the intention was there... )
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_
ail to see how more individual choice should achieve that.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
abase behind it.
Our community norm currently says it is a database if it was intended to
extract the data... some time in the past someone said "it is a database
if you say it is one". Maybe that wasn't so bad after all.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.
cares what happened
in the black box, because you only have to share the last in a chain of
derived databases that leads to a produced work, right?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_
uld look
like, we should determine what flexibility we have, if any.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 06/29/11 05:21, James Livingston wrote:
I don't think it would be treated differently, because I believe that an
in-memory data structure would still be a database (in the ODbL and
database right sense of "database"). I don't see how the storage
mechanism makes a difference.
Would you t
message makes sense, and it would not be a bad thing to have these
things spelled out in the CT. Alas, I fear that it is now too late to
change them in this respect; changing the future-relicense-process in
the CT would in my opinion render the existing CT agreements invalid and
Hi,
On 06/22/11 15:18, ThomasB wrote:
My point is that a user of software, and this is not limited to Garmin map
software, may not know what a software does in the background i.e. if it is
creating a (temporary) Derivative Database, a Collective Database or
whatever.
Yes. The software might we
You are certainly not required to make available a historic snapshot of
OSM just because you have a historic tile on your server.
See also the work-in-progress page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ra
contributes
them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL.
Duh. Does that mean I don't get to delete the Australian coastline in
the end?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
Hi,
On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote:
So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced
works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from,
Ignore my words if you want but don't claim you are "met with silence".
unless the
ODBL prevents this in which case tile u
Hi,
On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:
Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?
Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles.
Tiles can be put un
Hi,
On 06/17/11 10:49, John Smith wrote:
Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
Produced Work.
So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then?
Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
This echoes the "reverse engineering" disc
Hi,
On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote:
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden
of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even
*begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to
tell us what license restrict
Hi,
On 06/16/11 10:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to
check existing data and delete it if so.
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the
burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, h
)
At the same time, and even though this may sound conflicting, an effort
should be made to involve TimSC in AoA discussions, or he should be
encouraged to stand for election to the board, because paragraphs>.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remo
t;real" share-alike
license.
Even CC-BY-SA does have exemptions (e.g. something that is covered by a
patent may not fall under CC-BY-SA's share-alike). Who's to say what counts?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33
willing to submit to a 2/3 majority, but
requested the option to veto any future license change for "his" data.
If that is the case he's talking about then this is really far beyond
what "the sysadmins" want or don't want...
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eM
were unnecessary, I'd
certainly not waste my time on this list.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.op
Hi,
On 06/07/11 10:35, Ed Avis wrote:
The process is pretty simple really:
- decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote
- get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence
- block anyone who says no from contributing
and presto! you have your 2/3 majority
Hi,
On 06/07/11 06:27, Mike Dupont wrote:
The people are not being asked to agree to a license in general, but
to give up an allow the board to tweak the license for them.
No.
There are three ways in which the license can be changed in the future.
1. Ask everyone to relicense to "X". This is
other exception might be that OSMF can sue others for abuse
on your behalf. But again - is that a problem? Would you rather have the
sentence about suing for copyright violation removed from the CT, would
that be better?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@re
the remaining 1/3 after 2/3 have agreed, and thus a 2/3 majority
would not be of any use currently.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
onsidered for
the main page.
Having said that, OSM is much more than www.openstreetmap.org.
With great sadness to I write these words
And also with great confusion, it seems, since at least half of it was
based on false assumptions.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@r
Hi,
On 06/06/11 12:56, Kirill Bestoujev wrote:
The resulting map (a single file) contains data from both
sources. Can this resulting map (which is a database by its inside
structure) treated as a collective database?
I believe so. In my opinion, a derived database would result if you were
to
cially) loss-less transition to phase 5.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
phase 5) should
be used to pre-emptively remap everything that has not been relicensed,
so that we have a smooth transition instead of having to endure empty
spots on the map. Nobody gains if we do this in haste.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N
uld mean that we should continue to tell mappers not to start
replacing non-relicensed data even after phase 4 comes into effect, right?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
le
he CT, there's no
reason to prefer the former.
He made the same claim to talk-au without backing up his assertions
when questions so his claims could be verified.
Where the claim was made has no relevance for my assessment that it does
not make a difference.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
he CT, there's
no reason to prefer the former.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
rson's data and
replace it with yours. The map will not be worse for it, and the other
mapper can hardly complain.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailin
e page. Because currently
people are not; some thing that they have until phase 5 to reconsider,
and some already have twitchy fingers and will start purging
non-relicensed data as soon as we say "phase 4". (Well some are already
purging non-relicensed data now but everybody advise
Hi,
Mike Dupont wrote:
Funny, based on my last question, the OSM will not be able to use
cc-by-sa data in the future.
Some say that we aren't able to use CC-BY-SA data now because we cannot
provide proper attribution.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ##
Russ,
On 05/06/11 07:25, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Would you really say that personally, as far as your contributions are
> concerned, you consider your "I agree" click to be legally void because
> it happened "under duress"?
No, I'm saying that *everyone's* agreement is invalid because it
Russ,
(I'm trying to move this over to legal-talk because you are
expressing an interesting legal viewpoint):
On 05/05/11 06:27, Russ Nelson wrote:
I'm wondering on what data you come to that conclusion? Because people
have clicked "ok" on the license change and CTs? And yet there is no
ag
a?
If OSM data is instrumental in the point being created then it is
certainly a derived work. (It isn't a derived work until step 3.3
because OSM data only comes into play in 3.4.)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33&q
Hi,
On 04/17/2011 10:51 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at
the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of
copyright is a no go for some.
Firstly, in the CT case we're not talking "transfer of copyright".
Secondly,
Eugene,
On 04/17/2011 06:39 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
Some people have problems with section 2 of the proposed CT because of
granting of rights to OSMF.
[...]
Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why
should it be a big problem for OSM contributors
True. Also
Hi,
On 04/15/2011 09:16 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
In addition, it is imho not clear that not some of the many
imports listed as "Attribution" licensed wouldn't fall into this
category, too (rather than in category 3 as CC-BY).
I haven't seen this list so cannot comment.
Sorry for that. I had
Hi,
(Thread moved over from talk)
On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:
In addition, it is imho not clear that not some of the many imports listed
as "Attribution" licensed wouldn't fall into this category, too (rather than
in category 3 as CC-BY).
To be clear, my "category 3" was meant
Hi,
On 04/14/2011 09:54 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
If I'm reading what Francis has written correctly, this would seem to
be a very real problem with CT 2.2.4, which would prevent us using
almost any source which wasn't PD or for which the contributor didn't
own the copyright. In particula
to ODbL.
(Followup-to legal-talk.)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 04/08/2011 05:05 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor
Terms would still make a lot of sense.
Well, in that particular case, the automatic forward compatibility of CC-BY-SA
would take care of it.
I was trying to say that even if we h
Hi,
On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could
just keep on mapp
Hi,
On 03/24/11 09:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
...and many prospective contributors are being shunned away because a
new contributor doesn't have the same privileges as existing
contributors. i.e. existing contributors can use non-CT compatible
data, but new users cannot.
That's a funny distincti
Effectively policing *any* license would very likely require a
*multiple* of OSMF's whole current budget. Do you want to stand before
mappers and tell them "for every pound we spend for servers to make
mapping a nicer experience, we spend five pounds to seek out and punish
license viol
embarassement to the project.
Personally I think that "name and shame" should be the utmost we do with
violators, and legal steps should neither be threatened nor initiated
except in very grave circumstances.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm #
Hi,
On 02/16/11 18:56, David Groom wrote:
On the wiki under phase 4 of the licencing plan [1] it says "Final
cut-off. Community Question: What do we do with the people who have
declined or not responded?"
Who is "the community" in the above context,
Anyone who wants to say something. Note tha
Hi,
Irakli wrote:
Hi I’m new user and I have some questions
Maybe
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/2676/can-i-use-osm-in-software-that-is-password-protected
answers some of them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09"
Peter,
On 02/02/11 21:02, Peter Miller wrote:
I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very
unhelpful view for the project to take.
The whole attribution-and-share-alike thing is a very unhelpful
situation for the project but it doesn't go away simply because it is
iden
Hi,
On 02/02/11 19:47, 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
is open and OSM is attributed; not that
Hi,
On 02/02/11 19:39, Peter Miller wrote:
So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able
to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not
available on an open license even if the context of the two images is
completely different?
Yes, I am not o
Hi,
On 02/02/11 18:49, Jonathan Harley wrote:
For print, yes, that's about the size of it.
I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to
paper or to a screen, changes the bits used
The difference is who makes the work.
If you have an image comprising two separatable
inion is
rather more on Peter's side I'd probably make some phone calls tomorrow
and tell some people that contrary to what I said earlier, they can go
ahead with their projects ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33
x27;s best for a
database of facts is best for OSM.
I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing
themselves is that "data should be licensed CC0", not "OSM is a databae
of facts".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org
play.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
is not as free as we'd like it to
be, and if they possess enough raw material to replace the data with
something fully CT compatible, they should do so.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 01/05/2011 02:14 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen >>
Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will
not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to
the CT.
No edit with my account leads to that I demand my previous data
Hi,
On 01/05/2011 01:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
If the new path for licence changes is well-thought-out and well-defined, why
are we not using it now?
I would love to, however if today 2/3 agree to the license change, we
still need to get an OK from the remaining 1/3 to continue using their
data
Hi,
On 01/05/11 09:01, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Is there a tool available to remove all my contributed data from osm,
safeguard it, and allows me to resubmit once I can agree
with the CT and new license ?
No. You would probably negatively affect a lot of other contri
Hi,
On 01/04/11 15:17, John Smith wrote:
Or better yet, change "active contributor" to "active participant" and
include things like genuine mailing list posts or wiki edits or ...
rather than restricting "interested parties" to only those who can
edit...
I think that would be perfectly ok, alb
101 - 200 of 684 matches
Mail list logo
