On 25 Oct 2008, at 11:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What I don't like about share-alike is the small-minded attempt to
codify this
giving away into something legally binding. To me, this is deeply
based
in a negativist, paranoid world view where everyone is out to cheat
you.
... which is
There is talk underway to do so.
However, many of us feel that splitting the user base and splitting
contributions would be destructive. We could produce better maps if we
cooperated.
Don't you agree?
-J
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I ever start a open
Steve,
SteveC wrote:
Guys OSM isn't going PD...
Who can say? OSM goes where the community wants it to. You were present
at SOTM 07; do you remember the show of hands when people were asked
what they think about PD? That the Foundation is investigating
share-alike licenses and not PD is due
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:02:26PM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
From what I understand, under the new license, any dataset that we
build in-house based on the geometry or tags of data in the
transportation layer, which we choose to release to our client or
other parties, would have to be
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:43:17AM +0200, bvh wrote:
That is not true. As long as you base your work solely on your own data,
you are free to do with it as you seek. Even after having uploaded it
under the proposed license.
(Not taking into account how the licence sees it at all.)
Not really,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 07:36:08AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
Richard wrote: One thing I really love about OSM is the pragmatic,
un-political
approach: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create our own and
you can shove it.
(I don’t see Richard’s original email, so I’ll reply
What about a yahoo discussin group for OSM-PD? Would anyone object to that?
Landon
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Tom Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
Does anyone have the e-mail address for Tom Hughes so I could request
the creation of a public domain mailing list
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote:
Personally I'd be very happy to see the discussion of PD continue on
the talk list but a mailing list seems a very minor resource compared
to the time and effort that have gone into the creating the new
license.
I see the PD route
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote:
Personally I'd be very happy to see the discussion of PD continue on
the talk list but a mailing list seems a very minor resource compared
to the time and effort
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:17:35AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote:
I intended to have an overlay on my map which showed bus stops. This
data would be collected from the local bus company.
Under the old license, I couldn't use OSM because I couldn't share the
overlay. It might not have been a
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Ian Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't we just be happen to produce maps and data people will want to
use?
Ian.
We already produce maps and data people want to use.
I also want the maps and data to be under a license which lets them be
used. (More.)
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
IMHO, PD weakens OSM and weakens its ability to free up other datasets.
I don't see the ability to free up other datasets as central to OSM,
and as such, weakening this ability does not IMHO weaken OSM.
12 matches
Mail list logo
