John Wilbanks wrote:
ps - Those of you interested in copyleft and freedom might want to
interview Stallman on this issue as well.
I tend not to agree with him on non-software issues but I would be very
interested to know what he thinks, particularly since he has just been
through a major
Which particular FUD do you have in mind? ;-)
*Any* licence will carry legal risks. Paying for a proprietary dataset
without talking the licence through with a lawyer would be silly. There
is no reason why a free licence should be any different. Simple
licences are not necessarily easier to
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
In Linux that problem is solved by companies bying their product from
Redhat, including some kind of insurance that RedHat provides. If there
are legal hassles, then Redhat would be sued and RedHat would have to
deal with the 2 copyright holders and not the
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if I offer processed OSM data on my web site for others to use under
CC-BY-SA: Whom do the others have to give attribution? I usually expect
everyone to retain the OpenStreetMap contributors message and leave me
(or my
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I believe that it is entirely appropriate and practical for all
60,000 contributors (or 600,000!) to be listed on the OpenStreetMap website;
that seems entirely 'appropriate for the medium or means' and I suggest
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if it is even possible to write down a sharp distinction
between the two cases, but for me there is a world of difference between
(a) giving a data base to someone whom I pay to do something with it for
me -
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876
messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before.
Me too. ;-)
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
clicktrough
is the embodiment of impracticality.
Yes.
Using the data should require no agreement. Distributing modifications
(and by distributing I mean exposing in any way to users not employed
or subcontracted by your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Rob Myers wrote:
In the US, the FSF are very careful to say that the GPL is a license,
not a contract.
The proposed ODbL, on the other hand, is very careful to point out that
it wants to be a license as well as a contract
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You say 'everyone else is worse off' if they use a PD map. It seems
like the bus company wins - they have more passengers.
Privatising wealth is always a win for those who privatise it but this
isn't really a reason for
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I _do_ like the fact that people in OSM are starting to figure out why
Potlatch is called Potlatch.
I had assumed it was a kind of stew. ;-)
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
most is not enough. There are reasons to link data into a program.
I am a Lisp programmer. Code is data. ;-)
And use of the GPL is not restricted to software. Maybe I want to make a
map where some location is marked by a GPLed image. Maybe I want to put
some
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy answered that in the message you are replying to, but you edited
his answer out.
D'oh. Sorry about that. :-(
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you instead give the customer a heavily DRMed and encrypted version
of your data, together with some decryption/processing software and with
an OSM data file, and make it so that the PDF is generated on the
customer's
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the main problems with sharealike/copyleft is the large number of
incompatible licenses. I suggest explicitly adding some important such
licenses to 4.4 iii, so we don't lock too many other free communities
IANAL, TINLA.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My example above did *not* contain distribution of any OSM-derived work.
The items that were distributed were (a) proprietary software, (b)
proprietary data, and (c) unaltered OSM data.
(c) is distribution
IANAL, TINLA.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd rather it need not be legally binding, just automatic. The problem
is that the laws to restrict exist at all, not the philosophy behind
keeping things free.
The laws that do or do not restrict data are
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly recommend that any first contacts
be much more friendly, point out potential issues and offer reasonings
and a way to enter into discussion to do things correctly.
Yes I think this is important.
The Creative
Frederik Ramm wrote:
In my eyes this modular nonsense is actually the greatest problem with
the CC licenses and I'm happy not to see it repeated here.
A little harsh but I do agree that licence proliferation is a bad
thing. ODbL should not support it.
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description:
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM, brendan barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Would I be allowed to leave out the user and timestamp tags in
the version that I create? Could I leave out any unnecessary tags
(there are a few)?
Yes, you can. The
Nathan Vander Wilt wrote:
For example,
if a photographer geotags a picture using OSM, what are the chances of
a local surveyor (or any other contributor) wanting to decide how that
copy of the photograph must then be licensed?
Zero.
(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
-
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
What information can we use from these sources under 'fair use' rules?
Under English Welsh or European law, none. There's no Fair Use exception here.
Under American law, whatever you can get away with in court.
I
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is the
well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible with sources
(and consumers) using the same license. So, say I've uploaded a lot
of information based on wikipedia, conscious that I'm uploading
Simon Ward wrote:
I can’t help but think it would be more with the spirit of the project
to have open development of the licence, and that it would have been
beneficial if this had been an open development much earlier.
I've submitted comments on previous drafts of the licence via the blog
it
Please don't post personal emails when discussing trustworthiness. :-(
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Peter Miller wrote:
I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to
one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than
one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at
present).
Frederik's email of 16.40 covers what I would like
Rob Myers wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to
one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than
one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at
present).
Frederik's email of 16.40
MJ Ray wrote:
As I understand it, once the trademark registration is confirmed (no
matter who to), unauthorised commercial use of the mark becomes a
criminal act punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years prison.
Has a written license been granted, or are you expecting people not to
Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer =
to a
situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to
something where only part of it is.=20
A collective work includes the untransformed work.
A derivative work adapts it in some way.
One can claim
John Wilbanks wrote:
(although I find the idea that freedom can only come from the
barrel of a license deeply depressing).
That's CC Zero out of the running then.
If Big Company decides to run a mechanical turk contest on Amazon to
extract facts from your DB one at a time, do they violate
John Wilbanks wrote:
This is why if you peruse the CC0 site, you'll see it referred to as a
legal tool and not a license. It's a small thing, but an important thing
to remember. Conflating the waiving of rights with the licensing of
rights is what we're trying to avoid in this context.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to
give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you
waive all right to
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org wrote:
I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with
fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed.
The licence discussion has been going on for a couple of *years* now.
It needs
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
OJ W wrote:
the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data
does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license?
You can create an image and
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
1. Creative Commons licences define Work (which you're quoting in the case
of 4a) as the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of
this License (1e). I.e., as we know by now, CC-BY-SA is defined and
SteveC wrote:
No I think there are some substantial issues, but they're inflated
because of the PoV.
I didn't have a chance to get to Science Commons while I was in Boston
last week but I did talk to various people who are Smarter Than Me (tm)
from the FSF and CC and none of them supported
2009/12/8 mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Yes. The fork must be under the ODbL.
(I am not a lawyer, etc.)
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 11/12/09 10:26, James Livingston wrote:
* You wouldn't be able to use data you personally collected, except under the
ODbL (the last part of the second sentence on the second paragraph above).
I believe that the FSF copyright assignment scheme licences your work
back to you once you sign
On 12/12/09 11:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
but even with ODbL in place and considering the best interests of the
project as a whole, for me it would be perfectly sufficient to be able
to say publicly that X is using OSM illegally.
Rather than naming and shaming, the FSF and the SFLC always
On 12/12/09 12:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Agreed, although this of course requires determined and capable people
to do the work. If there are such people in OSM who do that voluntarily
then that's good. If there are no such people then I would object to
spending money to hire them from
On 01/01/10 17:40, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly*
relevant.
What OSMF requires in the current draft is for you to effectively give up
your copyright
On 05/03/10 20:16, Liz wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, elf Pavlik wrote:
Hello Everyone!
I just asked on GeoNames mailing list why they don't use OSM for their
map functionality.
http://groups.google.com/group/geonames/t/ec02877f850cf6c7
A person named Marc responded that OSM share-alike
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:47:47 +0200, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com
wrote:
If ODBL existed in the same variants as CC does, this would be easier.
I support CC very strongly, but I don't recommend licence variants. They
make things even more confusing and incompatible.
OSM can be viewed as
On 07/14/2010 12:32 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:12 PM, 80n80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The correct way to re-license a project is to fork it.
I whole-heartedly disagree. Do you think that wikipedia should have
forked for their relicensing? Or Mozilla? They managed to find
On 07/15/2010 10:38 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 15 July 2010 18:55, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
OSM has a clear mandate for the change. A majority (more than half) of the
electorate voted, and a clear majority of the votes were for the change.
Less than 49% of those eligible to vote,
On 07/15/2010 10:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 16 July 2010 00:48, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
More than half. And within that more than half, the vote was overwhelming.
Which is amusing, because it wouldn't have passed if few people that
disagreed hadn't voted.
Counterfactuals don't
On 07/16/2010 12:26 AM, TimSC wrote:
Not to mention the notes that accompanied the vote
were unashamedly pro-ODbL, despite Creative Commons criticizing the
ODbL.
Science Commons's views on the ODbL are not shared by OKFN, who seem to
have a better understanding of data law.
(different
On 07/16/2010 09:49 AM, Anthony wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being
that it has actually been written to cover data.
That's not at all correct. The main change between BY-SA and ODbL is
the requirement to release the database whenever you use the
On 07/16/2010 10:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 16 July 2010 18:35, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
48% for, 6% against, no clear majority...
The largest single voting category is clearly the for vote.
And within the cast votes the result is even clearer.
I guess you misunderstand what
On 07/16/2010 10:28 AM, Liz wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying
to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of
Australians.
a complete untruth
Then I sincerely apologize. :-(
- Rob
On 07/16/2010 01:01 PM, James Livingston wrote:
On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has
actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they are
afraid not enough people will relicence
On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole,
even if
it doesn't apply to some
On 07/16/2010 05:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases,
In the US.
OKFN
seem to think it might.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
On 07/17/2010 04:04 AM, Diane Peters wrote:
The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that
copyright doesn't apply to databases, is not correct.
I am sorry for misrepresenting SC's views on this.
One other point worth mentioning, this one in response to another
suggestion
On 07/16/2010 09:58 PM, Liz wrote:
After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable
to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was
the subject of the case.
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright
licences
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia?
The court case in question was over facts, dates and times
On 07/17/2010 04:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various
levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined
ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the
fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for
massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which
would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:33:44 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in
order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on
the
bus
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:58:25 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote:
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting,
Of the people?
The US and the
On 07/23/2010 02:02 PM, Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure anyone credible has claimed that [ODbL] is a free license. The
purpose of a free license is to grant permissions, not to impose
restrictions.
The purpose of a free licence is to protect people's freedom.
PD dedications and BSD licences
On 07/23/2010 04:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
Though, I'd say license is somewhat of a disingenuous term for
something which is actually an EULA.
Well, CC get to call CC0 not a licence. ;-)
I agree that the ODbL isn't just a licence, but I don't think it's any
more accurate to call it a EULA.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:33:59 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, the end result is effectively the same: with no copyright
statement, the default is All rights reserved, so the only way the
finder can do anything whatsoever with the work is go to www.osm.org
and
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
How?
By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves.
Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial.
Relicencing derivative works is trivial.
Getting the approval of every OSM user to approve a change
On 07/25/2010 05:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
So why hasn't OSMF moved OSM to CC-BY-SA 3.0? The upgrade clause
makes that nearly as simple as sed 's/2.0/3.0/g' index.html,
right?
Nearly.
But at least one major contribution to OSM is from a jurisdiction where
the 2.0 licences included the EU DB
On 07/24/2010 05:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony o...@inbox.org
mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote:
How?
By acknowledging their existence and using
On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would
violate CC-BY-SA.
Copyleft licences (or a copyleft licence and a hybrid copyright/DB
Right/contract law conceptual approximation of sharealike) are
*generally* mutually incompatible
On 07/26/2010 04:29 PM, Anthony wrote:
Only if you license the produced work under BY-SA. Which means *all
elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA. Which means *the data*
encapsulated in the produced work is under BY-SA.
No, it means the produced work is BY-SA.
Which means anybody
On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced
work without following the terms of ODbL.
Nowhere. However the terms that cover Produced Works are different to
those that cover Derivative Databases, and the attribution/advertising
On 07/26/2010 05:30 PM, Anthony wrote:
You said yourself that the database right doesn't have to be asserted.
Yes, I should have said do waive, not don't assert.
No one can assert the database right on a derivative of the OSM
database, because they'd need the permission of the maker of the
Further to the recent debate in which I asked and was asked about US
copyright...
Here (thanks to @mecredis on Twitter) is a reference to the split
decision on derivative copyright -
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2004/01/zephoria_kulesh.html
Here is a page about database copyright with
On 08/05/2010 12:11 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 21:02, Grant Slateropenstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 4 August 2010 22:25, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than ODbL, as
it has been well checked and has government use.
On 08/05/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
The idea
that copyright does not cover maps is very strange when you consider
that.
Nobody has said that it doesn't.
The point is that Geodata is not a visual work of cartography.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk
On 08/05/2010 03:07 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't see that's different from any other drawing,
in digital form.
It depends how creative/original it is.
No it doesn't. It depends whether
On 08/05/2010 03:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
Still waiting for that definition of geodata.
It's a contraction of geographical data.
Just because the map is
in digitized vector format doesn't mean it's not a digital version of
a visual work of cartography.
The fixed form is different. The fact
On 08/05/2010 03:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
I say such a definition is not possible to create.
Then why are you asking for one?
It is trivial to define geodata as geographical data in database form. A
rendered map isn't geodata because it isn't in database form.
The fixed form is different.
On 08/05/2010 04:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
Bottom line is it doesn't matter. Even if I broke the rules of OSM
while creating it, I'm still entitled to the copyright on my work.
If you are entitled to copyright. The point of the breaking the rules
is that the creativity/originality that breaking
On 08/07/2010 03:35 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't really see how there's an argument. If photoshop offers a
plugin that lets you draw a line with a certain thickness, a certain
color, and a label on it, and you use that photoshop plugin to make a
map, you've got a copyrighted work, and that
On 08/17/2010 05:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/8/17 Eugene Alvin Villarsea...@gmail.com:
It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other
meteorological data at a weather station.
IMHO it is not comparable at all, because we don't turn simply the gps
on and wait what
On 08/25/2010 09:28 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
Instead of leaving it open to any free licence, how about we set set the
minimum attribution and share alike provisions and say that it will be
subject to review in X years? (Five?)
For data, attribution is only a matter of freedom to the extent that
On 08/27/2010 04:43 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if the new license is compatible with the old one.
will we be able to use CC-SA-2.0 licensed data or we will have to get
new contracts with the donators of data?
for example, we have gotten much of the
On 08/29/2010 06:57 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
no, copyleft is only based on copyright.
sorry.
This is why I find it easier to refer to Share-Alike for OSM.
But in either case it's not the legal form that's important, it's the
social content.
- Rob.
On 08/29/2010 08:21 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data
with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other
license, as noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10
years.
It's because no-one can predict how the environment
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote:
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just
fine.
*) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1)
Some people think that GPL upgrades aren't subtle,
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court
cases that demonstrate that it
On 08/30/2010 11:06 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.
There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that
are merely
On 08/30/2010 11:28 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL
3 was seen as a major change.
No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and
spin it anyway
On 08/30/2010 11:44 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:40, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the
majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
You are trying to claim that open
On 08/30/2010 12:09 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.
*If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a
valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open
On 08/30/2010 01:09 PM, James Livingston wrote:
On 30/08/2010, at 3:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
projects of non-profit foundations.
It can yes, however there are a lot of developers who refuse to work on
projects
On 08/31/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
So that's all allowed? Okay then. Let the games begin. I can create
a few extra gmail accounts to troll the list with too.
I think it's more that we should ignore (people who we think are)
obvious trolls.
I'm not sure that Marxist views on
On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, 80n wrote:
Nobody is saying that CC-BY-SA is perfect.
But they are saying that it is unsuitable.
It isn't but it works. Look at how quickly Waze reacted. Not bad for
a broken license, eh?
Rely on people's good intentions is not a general solution.
The great
On 09/01/2010 10:17 PM, Liz wrote:
1. From where does OSMF get the mandate to choose the licence? OSMF mandate is
to own and run the servers . I got that from the OSMF website.
The OSMF's Memorandum of Association, which is the legal expression of
the Foundation's purpose, states:
3. The
On 09/02/2010 05:09 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it.
+1
ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution.
What it isn't is share-alike for produced works.
Even BY-SA doesn't cover
On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote:
1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus?
OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else?
Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or
minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a
On 09/02/2010 12:55 PM, TimSC wrote:
The question I was asking was primarily about HOW we reach that
consensus, which you did not address. If you had specifically answered
my questions, it would have helped.
My understanding (such as it is) of how OSM works comes from having
watched it
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
