Johan C wrote:
> It's quite simple: as long as MAPS.ME operates in either the white or
> the grey area of the license it's perfectly fine what they are doing.
Um, no, that's precisely what "grey area" _doesn't_ mean.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Ilya Zverev wrote:
> Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map,
> and on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to
> hide the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1
> km. Does in that moment when a user clickes the options, the
>
dieterdreist wrote:
> Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to
> review and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview
> about the compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
This is really good. Thanks, Martin.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
Alex Barth wrote:
> Fixing the license surely can't be the extent of our plan, but we need
> to be able to have a frank conversation about how licensing is hurting
> use cases and engagement on OSM, without second guessing
> people's intentions and without just showing them the door to
> TomTom
Steve Bennett wrote [quoting DELWP]:
> My initial response is that we wouldn't want OSM to apply a more
> restrictive license than ours
In which case they've chosen the wrong licence.
If you license your work under a permissive, attribution-only licence
(CC-BY), then you are automatically
John Bergmayer wrote:
The problem being, of course, assuming there is no
property right, there's only a contract, not a license.
Contracts are not enforceable against third parties.
A person who makes OSM data available without
conditioning it on acceptance of the same contract,
may
Simon Poole wrote:
As the name of this list says it is legal talk (aka yapping
without consequence) ... not get-help-from-the-OSMF.
With my list admin hat on, I think that's a little harsh. Often, as you say,
queries can be resolved by pointing to the relevant published guidelines
and there's
Matt Morrow wrote:
That is in contradiction to the Open Data License/Use Cases page.
Please don't use that page. As per the preamble:
This wiki page was used for discussion and development of the move to the
Open Database License. It is not legal advice, and is likely to be
inaccurate or
Admin note: nominally I'm administrator of the legal-talk@ list. In practice
the only international OSM list to ever have been announced as moderated
is talk@, and I think locally talk-us@ may be moderated as well. Merely
administered is a much more light-touch approach and generally works well
[I'm going to break my rule of not posting to the mailing lists for this,
because it's an interesting query and important for OSM. Since I started
writing this, Robert has made an excellent posting which covers much of the
same ground and comes to related conclusions, but from a slightly different
Paul Norman wrote:
Is there any relevant case law on substantial?
A brief reminder that there are two useful wiki pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Case_law
which collect links to useful papers and cases. In particular Charlotte
Waelde's paper
Someoneelse wrote:
Someone's being adding translations of place names using:
These aren't translations, they're transliterations. General consensus is
that we shouldn't add transliterations (which are essentially algorithmic)
to OSM.
Apparently Place names translations are public knowledge and
WhereAmI wrote:
It would appear that any and all data associated with a
website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
data is used.
What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
trivially disprovable.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Eric Sibert wrote:
They established a route that for instance allows to from city A
to city B but not with the short way. Instead, it is going left and
right to visit points of interest, alpine hutch and so on. They
claim that such a work is an original work.
Yes, I can see that. I've
Kate Chapman wrote:
So is the new dataset a derived database? It seems like it is to
me. What should we be licensing this?
CC-BY is pretty much compatible with ODbL: CC-BY only requires attribution
and ODbL provides that. There may be tiny differences of legalese but
nothing substantive. So
Igor Brejc wrote:
4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a
Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if
you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice
associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any
Person that
Jani Patokallio wrote:
Any advice would be appreciated, as I still have a faint flicker
of hope that we can get this past the corporate legal team
and possibly even contribute back to OSM!
On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of
OSM-derived data and other
Shu Higashi wrote:
Map data (c) ODbL 1.0 OpenStreetMap contributors and
Map tile (c) CC BY-SA 2.0 OpenStreetMap
That would be fine, but you could also do:
(c) OpenStreetMap contributors: license
where license is hyperlinked to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
cheers
Richard
--
[followups set to legal-talk, but you may want to adjust to talk-us if
focusing on LA etc.]
On 21/06/2012 17:57, Alan Mintz wrote:
Richard wrote:
...Given people's constraints on time and the community's
(understandable) desire for the redaction to get underway asap...
I've seen no such
Mayeul Kauffmann wrote:
I think data licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 cannot be put
under ODbL without written authorisation by the copyright
owner. Can you confirm this?
Yes, that's correct.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Ian Sergeant wrote:
However, if the transition happened today in Sydney, we would lose
every freeway, every trunk road, every primary road, the harbour
crossings, the foreshore. All the rivers.
Without wishing to play down your loss at all - I wouldn't want to be an
Australian OSM user at
Freimut - I'm happy to talk to your journalist. As you might know, my day
job is as a magazine editor (our magazine celebrates its 40th anniversary
this year) and therefore, you could say, I'm quite accustomed to this kind
of work. Maybe you might be kind enough to forward my details to this
Michael Collinson wrote:
- as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make
such a statement?
- is it true?
- can you see any negative consequences?
I'm with Ed and Frederik on this one, I'm afraid - I don't see any way in
which we can afford additional permissions on a one-off
Frederik Ramm wrote:
There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can
be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which
a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another,
new way denotes a split.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
If we have:
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
(I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point)
It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a
non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i-i+j+k+l. Then
add some merges and some deletes, and you possibly have
As posted on talk-gb, Google Maps appear to have switched to using their
own data rather than Tele Atlas's in the UK this morning.
This raises a couple of interesting points.
Firstly, it seems pretty clear to me that some of the data is OS-derived
(probably from OpenData or a commercial
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think that anything said until here will not be disputed by Richard
Indeed not. :)
the bit that *can* be disputed is whether or not it is permissible
to label your resulting image a database and then not release
the database behind it.
Yep. I read the EU Database
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up
edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just
retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely
to change its legal status.
Surely you understand that the
!i! wrote:
But to be hornest, we aren't legal experts, so it would be great to
get a statement of people that are more aware of all of the legal aspects.
1. You cannot apply extra conditions to the licence (CC-BY-SA 4a, as you
say).
2. Your website may have its own terms of use that restrict
80n wrote:
It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff. It
didn't take long to create in the first place and remapping it
is going to be a lot of fun isn't it?
Yep, exactly. It's actually surprisingly easy, especially with features such
as railway lines that are easily
Gert Gremmen wrote:
Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous
owner, just as copying from google would violate their
terms of service.
As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about
Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge
There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August
(https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).
Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their
contributions are public domain.
There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be
maintained in
[Forwarding two messages to the list from Angelika Voss - her messages
have been rejected but there's no sign of them in the admin interface
AFAICT. -- Richard, legal-talk admin]
Hello,
I would like to get your oppinion regarding the ODbL for the use case
described below. I have asked
[second forwarded message -- Richard, legal-talk admin]
Hello again,
for one more use case I would like to get your oppinion regarding the
ODbL. Your answers are relevant for our research, and could be relevant
for Muki Haklay and others who compare OSM with other reference
datasets to
Ed Avis wrote:
Interesting slip... of course I meant to say 'contacting'...
:)
So are there cases where people are thumbing their nose at the licence,
but somehow if we used ODbL they would fall into line?
Couldn't tell you that without reading their minds! I honestly don't know
how many
Tordanik wrote:
I see that the ODbL fits your particular use case nicely. But as
you acknowledge, things look different for people with other
use cases. I expect that I'm one of those people whose favourite
use cases won't benefit from ODbL - quite the opposite, in fact.
I can certainly
Tordanik wrote:
Currently, we offer reasonable terms to good guys. Bad guys might
be able to squeeze out a bit more in some jurisdictions if they can
live with bad press and severed community ties.
That doesn't happen a lot, though - as far as I can tell - and the
possibility just doesn't
Guy Collins wrote:
Excuse this question if it has been answered in a wiki somewhere, but I
would very much like to know who owns copyright of any data contributed
under the Open Database Licence?
The brief answer is: the mapper does, just as they do under our current
licence (CC-BY-SA).
Maarten Deen wrote:
Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value
of the highway tag is not a geographical fact.
Sure they are.
If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry sign at a
certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other way,
Hi all,
As the licence change draws on, we will inevitably be looking at remapping
objects touched by a decliner.
I'm interested in how we (as users) tackle something like this:
user A (agrees) surveys and maps
user B (agrees) refines geometry and tags
user C (agrees)
David Groom wrote:
We also have be mindful of the OSM guideline of substantial [1], which
seems to indicate that only very small extracts counts as insubstantial.
I think the thing about these guidelines is that they are meant to be
Community Guidelines: here's what the OSM community expects
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4).
I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database
doesn't reduce the amount of information.
The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike
licence, is to
Frederik Ramm wrote:
If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database,
then you can simply share *that* database and nobody 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?
Robert Whittaker wrote:
A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free
and Open license without the need for further checks.
No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in
November 2010 and
(continuing from previous message, d'oh)
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community
would need to check existing data and delete it if so.
See also CT 1.2.x 1b which explicitly envisages this possibility:
if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense
Gert Gremmen wrote:
Some of us try to minimize the number of refused CT (about
400) but I have the strong feeling that those are mainly found
in the old core of the first 1000 of OSM mappers, the founders
that were interested in real free data.
Wut?
AFAIK the three contributors with the
Quintin Driver wrote:
Richard, have you or any of the LWG members done any work for MapQuest,
Skobbler and / or Cloudmade ?
Wow. I'm not an LWG member and I've never done any work for MapQuest,
Skobbler and/or CloudMade.
Where on earth did that come from and what on earth has it got to do
I'm led to believe that people have been issuing LWG with private lists of
demands that they want met before they will consent to ODbL+CT.
Could I ask that said people have the courtesy to post their demands here, too?
It would be a shame if the suspicion arose that the process is being swayed
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
[some hard-to-follow stuff]
Gert - could you quote in the same way that everyone else does, please? i.e.
no top-posting, snip the bits of the message you're replying to, prefix each
line of quoting with , line-wrap your quotes properly. It
Francis Davey wrote:
droit d'auteur does not (as I understand the term) include
database right. Its un droit des producteurs de bases de données
rather than un droit d'auteur (forgive my atrocious French - its been
nearly 30 years since I studied it).
Nearly 20 years here, but FWIW,
Francis Davey wrote:
I hope that makes sense and is not too mad.
Absolutely. I guess what the Wikipedia article tells us is that informally
(if incorrectly) one is often called the other and that, perhaps, is where
the confusion in the French translation lies.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[some stuff]
Apparently CT 1.2.4 in French have just this moment gone live:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Request-for-clarification
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements
are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use
OSM.
That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't
simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply
davespod wrote:
If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct,
then ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced
works (e.g., maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database.
I'm restating what I said in
Mike Collinson wrote:
Thanks, David. Bother. Either it refers only to Royal Mail-tainted
Code-Point data as immediately above the text or the OS are pulling
a fast one by re-writing the OGL ... making it effectively their old
problematic license. Assuming the latter we'll need to lobby.
John Smith wrote:
Erm doesn't that invalidate the flexibility or relicense in future
people keep going on about?
I think Mike already answered that one at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005716.html
.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
davespod wrote:
Richard wrote:
Mike Collinson wrote
It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector
information
I sincerely hope it doesn't say that!
I'm afraid it does.
For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I
have checked and no, the OS
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon,
which is explicitly compatible with ODbL.
They switched today. :)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
John Smith wrote:
I still don't understand how data could be accepted on that basis
in the first place, either there has to be firm statements that such
data would be removed, not may be removed
As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write
we will not do
Ed Avis wrote:
I think that actions speak louder than words
svn is that way
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5891828.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at
John Smith wrote:
On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly
write
we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms
[...]
What's with the comparisons of contract law and criminal law
Gert Gremmen wrote:
Free data needs no license or CT.
I agree! I'm really glad you - like me and many others - are dedicating your
data to the public domain. No licence, no CT.
Once OSM continues under new license and CT
(as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn.
Oh,
John Smith wrote:
I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright
infringement as a criminal offence...
It's an offence in EW whether personal or commercial. For a business, it's
an offence to distribute copyrighted material without licence; for an
individual, it's an
Rob Myers wrote:
On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
Terms.
[citation needed]
(http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)
:)
I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about
John Smith wrote:
That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements
They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.
and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses
It doesn't. CT 4
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
ODbL 4.3 requires that the source database be attributed, not any
data sources that went into making that database.
As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e. Extracting
I wrote:
As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it
helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e.
Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the
Contents in a new Database).
To take the example given in ODbL 4.3a,
Andrew Harvey wrote:
We need to find a norm as a community so we don't have
this conflict.
We do have a norm as a community. 99% of people are tracing from Bing
imagery and you're not.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
John Smith wrote:
In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government
Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences
(ODC-By and ODbL).
Nice bait and switch...
Goodness me, John, do you have to be so confrontational about _everything_?!
In your first
Simon Poole wrote:
Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer,
non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are
compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with
some degree of certainty is just a joke.
Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a
Sam Larsen wrote:
you cannot create permanent, offline copies of the imagery
Isn't this why we couldn't use SPOT imagery for HOT in Pakistan using
Potlatch - we were only able to use JOSM ( others) due to local
caching of tiles in Potlatch. Is this an issue?
No. Caching is not
Andrew Harvey wrote:
I am yet to see a license.
http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details has a set of terms of use
embedded in the post specifically for OSM. It's a Scribd document and
therefore requires Flash Player. There is also a PDF download link. If you
are unable to see the
David Groom wrote:
If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD
They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I
think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that
anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by
the chairman
Andrew Harvey wrote:
But that is opengeodata.org, not Microsoft, you would need a
license from Microsoft.
It was posted on OGD by a Microsoft employee and I can confirm I've had the
exact same licence sent from a Microsoft e-mail address. I believe there'll
be a Bing Maps blog post going up
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog post going up soon on the same
topic.
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com
Andrew Harvey wrote:
Just to clarify is this
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document
which contains the license grant?
No; the document is the one embedded in the OpenGeoData posting
(http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details). Like I say I'd envisage
it might be
Andrew Harvey wrote:
Is this available from Microsoft somewhere or a Microsoft web site?
It was posted on OpenGeoData by a Microsoft employee and I had a copy
e-mailed to me (in advance) by a Microsoft employee. Like I've said at least
twice now :) , it may need some firming up so please don't
Sebastian Klein wrote:
I don't really understand this paragraph, does it mean they want us
to give them the vector data we trace from their imagery, so they
can use it any form?
No. Bear in mind that us means Microsoft when you read this:
| [2] 5. Your Content. Except for material that we
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
b) Many people contribute to OpenStreetMap and would prefer a Public
Domain license.
[...]
I do not know, however, whether people in group b are interested in a
compromise or whether a fork of OpenStreetMap is seen as inevitable
anyway.
Plenty of PD
80n wrote:
You are not free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are simply avoiding
it by not publishing the combined work.
The ever-unreliable dictionary on this Mac defines publish as print
(something) in a book or journal so as to make it generally known: we pay
$10 for every letter we
80n wrote:
I see the example. Are you saying that this is a problem? It
looks perfectly fine to me.
Depends what you mean by problem.
If I were to contrast Scenario A (applying styles programmatically as in the
geowiki.com example, and delivering it via a Flash applet) and Scenario B
80n wrote:
There's a disconnect in your argument.
No, there isn't, because:
Your evenings of effort and your knowledge, skill and personal
judgement are not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing and are irrelevant.
The end product of all that effort is the thing that is relevant. That
end
[follow-ups to legal-talk, where this thread really should have started]
Kevin Peat wrote:
Personally I don't care if the current license is weak as most
organisations will respect its spirit and if a few don't who cares,
it doesn't devalue our efforts one cent. I can't see how changing
to an
Kevin Peat wrote:
But isn't the bit that's causing the bulk of the discussion a limited part
of the
CTs, not ODbL per se?
For most people, yes, though there are a few people for whom ODbL per se is
unpalatable (I think 80n is one, but he can correct me if I'm wrong).
Personally I don't have
Ed Avis wrote:
I feel the same way but I come to different conclusions because of
different starting assumptions.
Sure. YMMV and no two people come at this with the same philosophy. My
strongly-held belief is that, just as it's generally accepted that to
discriminate against fields of
Anthony wrote:
I really don't get this.
We have been through this before. I have no interest in engaging with you -
the sole person about whom I'll say that after six years in this project -
as a result of the ad hominem you resorted to last time round. I will
happily talk to Etienne, John,
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I ask once more
from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?
It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the licence
for the data which they've contributed[1].
What OSMF does have, though, is a mandate to host whatever it likes at
TimSC wrote:
It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the
community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more
fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the
mailing list!
Seriously?
You actually see this as some sort of trolling contest, trying to get
Ed Avis wrote:
However, under the proposed licence change and contributor terms, OSM
would
not be able to participate fully in this commons. Although the ODbL would
allow others to take the OSM data and combine it with other ODbL or
permissive-
licensed data sources, the OSM project
kevin wrote:
The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible
with current practise
Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there.
Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1]
OS OpenData released: April 2010.
Richard
[1]
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
The ODbL already doesn't enforce viral attribution on derivatives
of produced works
I don't intend to go over the argument on this again, but treat this message
as a little stake in the ground with I disagree with the above statement
written on it.
cheers
(Replying to two messages at once as they seem related)
Anthony wrote:
But it's quite a leap from some databases (e.g. white pages)
are non-copyrightable in some jurisdictions and databases
are non-copyrightable. In fact, I'd say it's quite plainly false.
Oh, absolutely. Copyright and
TimSC wrote:
I would have hoped the guy who established moderation on the lists
would have thought to avoid insulting people. Will the other
moderators do their job or just rally round Steve, regardless what
he says on the list?
There are no other moderators. Apart from Steve's
Anthony wrote:
Given your arguments on this list, I'd guess you're quite prepared
to believe anything that might help prevent you from admitting
that you are wrong.
At this point the argument has departed from factual/philosophical to ad
hominems, so I'll bow out. To anyone who's listened,
Anthony wrote:
[Jane Smith]
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the
means of Production.
Are there any moderators here?
Can we get this troll banned please.
I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence
'Jane Smith' might have committed
Ole Brandenburg wrote:
I would be thankful if someone can point me in the right direction.
We plan to use the OSM API for our map tool (at stepmap.de).
We currently have a list of roughly 1,500 pre-defined maps and
a zoom-feature that enables users to create their own map/region.
The OSM
Anthony wrote:
Another possibility is to assign the task of deciding what share
alike means to Creative Commons. Of course, that isn't likely
to work if you want to go with the ODbL...
I suspect CC's answer would be similar to
Michael Collinson wrote:
I have moved this from [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing
begins to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in
view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community. I
understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle
for releasing government data.
Is
Francis Davey wrote:
Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote
Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was
CC-BY - a much easier problem.
But still incompatible with the contributor terms in the sense
that a CC-BY licensee does not have sufficient rights to agree
Ed Avis wrote:
Anthony writes:
I'm currently working on a fork.
I'm still hopeful that people will find some compromise, and it won't be
needed. (Myself I would be quite happy if the project chose a dual
licence.) But if a fork proves necessary, I'll be happy to help.
My impression
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
