Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote on 16/12/2011 at 19:03:27 +1100
subject [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the
last known clean version? :
I am experimenting with using the tag odbl=clean for this, and will
build support for that into the OSMI relicensing
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
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes:
I am experimenting with using the tag odbl=clean for this,
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. (Recall that the
CTs require the content must be distributable under
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
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
* Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant
* Disagreeing user B adds name=Fred's Pizza Place
* Agreeing user C changes name=Tom's Pasta Emporium
this node is clearly clean already, because it does not
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 some
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes:
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 remap
On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think it would be good to have a tag that mappers can use to say this
object is clean, I have personally checked the history and/or reverted it to
a relicensable state, any contributions by non-agreeing users are not present
in the
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. Do other tried this approach in re-mapping?
--
cheers,
maning
--
Freedom is still the most
