+1
It's the contributor terms that made me refuse to accept.
Not ODBL. I can see the both the advantages and drawbacks
of ODBL but these are not a major problem.
For me the CT has been a problem.
I principally refuse to sign a contract where I can be held legally
responsible
for data
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:20 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
For me the CT has been a problem.
I principally refuse to sign a contract where I can be held legally
responsible
for data I contribute for free; where the other party engages itself to
From: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to
mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in the
USA cannot legally
On 08/10/2012 07:25 AM, Mike Dupont wrote:
Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in
the USA cannot legally sign the CT anyway because the would have to
ask the employeer for permission. If you have signed a NDA you might
be affected, some companies claim all employees
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
If someone is unable to sign the CTs because they don't hold copyright over
their contributions then they'd be unable to legally contribute to OSM or
any open mapping project regardless of the CTs.
If someone is not working
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Mike Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
If someone is unable to sign the CTs because they don't hold copyright
over
their contributions then they'd be unable to legally
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Apollinaris Schöll ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
They can claim what they want. Even if you sign such a contract it is not
valid. It's called employer and not slave driver. No court will enforce such
a contract.
Mr Schöll,
I have hear otherwise, first of all if you
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:23:00 +0200
Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Not dropping CC-BY-SA would send the signal that
... everything that has been said about CC-BY-SA not sufficiently
protecting our data was rubbish, and that we are happy with every user
choosing whichever is the
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
all
the problems we had with the license change
Lets be clear here, I think the problems is not because of the license
change, but the contributor terms , ( the click through license and the
mass collection of all IP
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:44:41 +
Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Lets be clear here, I think the problems is not because of the license
change, but the contributor terms , ( the click through license and
the mass collection of all IP rights by the OSF).
There is no
On Jul 27, 2012 7:03 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 July 2012 00:14, Pavel Pisa ppisa4li...@pikron.com wrote:
Dear OSMF responsible,
even recent discussions about ODBl compatibility with Wikipedia
problems shows that there can be problems or complications
with
On 27.07.2012 23:52, Frederik Ramm wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:33:59 +0200
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not the point, you still can't mix the future OSM data with
CC-By-SA data in the same database and publish that. This ability to
mix is one of the main features of
is this possible? that would be great for continuing with cc-by-sa.
mike
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:47 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote:
I was personally thinking of just publishing the full planet the same
way it is published today
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free
13 matches
Mail list logo
