Hi Michael
Obviously I would clearly prefer that the mappers in question simply
discover some pragmatism and get over any issues they may have with the
OSMF.
However that doesn't seem to happening and I would hope that giving them
an alternative path to retain their data in the DB (which is
On 1 September 2011 18:25, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Obviously I would clearly prefer that the mappers in question simply
discover some pragmatism and get over any issues they may have with the
OSMF.
That's an interesting spin on things, wouldn't the pragmatic approach
be for OSM-F to
Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have
made some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to
vouch for the data and accept the CTs?
At least for mappers that have not explicitly declined the CTs this
would seem to be doable without creating a
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have made
some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to vouch for
the data and accept the CTs?
This seems simple. All you need to do is
Hi Simon,
Basically no. Our stance is that the only copy of their data that is
accessible is what they contributed only under CC-BY-SA in a database
which is published CC-BY-SA. Whilst that stance may be arguable, the
number of contributors is small, (3?), there is still a paradox between
