On 28 December 2011 18:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Some reasons that I think it'd be risky to use that fact that there's
no copyright in some tags are:
* copyright works this way in many jurisdictions but in other
jurisdictions the creativity factor is less important and
On 24 November 2011 05:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls
short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole
Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last
On 1 September 2011 18:25, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Obviously I would clearly prefer that the mappers in question simply
discover some pragmatism and get over any issues they may have with the
OSMF.
That's an interesting spin on things, wouldn't the pragmatic approach
be for OSM-F to
On 24 July 2011 02:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
So do I suggest to stop the license change process? No, I don't. The
Contributor Terms will solve many problems on their own, so my
suggestion is what could be labelled CT + CC-BY-SA.
This will cause similar/same problems as
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.
All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best
of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why
bother about licenses at all?
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often drives laws and
On 7 July 2011 16:40, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
So artists have a human right to be rich?
Glad you took my point so far out of context, someone claimed that
copyright existed for economic reasons.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 7 July 2011 16:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage,
their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data
deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for
starting a fork
On 7 July 2011 04:03, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT
interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying
statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current
license and
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792,
152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792
On 7 July 2011 06:12, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider
any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright?
Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this?
Which is of
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces
a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM
map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same goes for
IMHO
On 7 July 2011 08:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Google in addition have their ToS.
So one person copies tiles and breaches contract and gives them to
another person who is only bound by copyright ...
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in
the data they
contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on
jurisdiction and so
on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it
for creativity
I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things
down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the
morally
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.
I didn't know the late 1800s was considered rather recent
___
On 7 July 2011 10:20, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters)
which doesn't make it recent,
but still twice as old as copyright law.
The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not
moral as you
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world
can be classified as creative work,
as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his
effort, and any deviation is
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So
for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way,
i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object.
The position of nodes are often
On 3 July 2011 02:15, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it.
Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT,
while B has.
Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of
On 25 June 2011 06:37, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Jonas Häggqvist rasher@... writes:
Is the CT/ODbL compatible with CC-BY-SA?
Say if an organization releases some data under CC-BY-SA, could we use it
(in the CT/ODbL future)?
If this were possible, then there would be no need for any
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a
lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper
traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to
cause the data to be deleted.
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a
lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper
traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to
cause the data to be deleted.
To
On 23 June 2011 03:37, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote:
Well, in the case of Haiti this is exactly what happened a lot -- with
Google's permission, though.
Haiti is one small area, most of the time people that copy from google
don't have permission.
And having said that I
On 21 June 2011 23:31, Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap@earth.li wrote:
[Sorry to quote so much context - please do scroll down!)
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I think the question being asked arises from the following
hypothetical chain of
On 19 June 2011 19:55, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
I just wanted to make clear that our current data
is submitted under CC-BY-SA (at least our community members declares so)
but there is absolutely no prove that the data submitted
can be CC-BY-SA.
On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound
recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics,
I'm guessing the answer is some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along
the lines
On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into
ODBL
On 19 June 2011 20:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
While person C could indeed get access to the original data (which
must be offered by B), in the hypothetical situation I envisaged, they
choose not to do so. They obtain the produced work under PD/CC0 or
CC-By
On 19 June 2011 23:20, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check
for compatibility with the current license. But the current license
is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay.
Since things seem to be going head first
I forgot to ask, do SVG files constitute a produced work?
The kind OSM.org currently outputs as SVG maps.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 20 June 2011 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles,
which don't offer attribution.
The ODbL requires attribution of the database.
The database can contain other attribution.
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially
for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely
difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a
database.
That's
On 18 June 2011 19:22, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
Tiles are clearly *maps* and so protected as artistic works under
article 2(1) of the Berne Convention and therefore (one hopes) in
every country which is a signatory to Berne which includes the US and
the EU. What you can do with
On 18 June 2011 19:48, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/6/18 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the
license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler
with a solid example.
OSM-F continues
On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Is this similar?:
Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA
OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or
something.
Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data.
On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Is this similar?:
Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA
OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or
something.
Betty
On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before-
publicating
her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's and claiming CC0
;)
It's silly because some people injected a
On 18 June 2011 00:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:
Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.
CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?
Sorry, I
On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
patents
On 18 June 2011 01:10, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the
countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the derived
database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the EU you are
not in trouble,
On 18 June 2011 05:25, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
In a similar vein, I think OSMF and any other publisher of OSM-derived map
tiles under CC-by-SA would be well advised to be explicit about what it is
they are licensing under CC-by-SA. In other words, they should follow the
On 5 June 2011 21:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Nick Hocking wrote:
The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of
residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped
ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data
I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a
questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set
On 5 June 2011 22:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Where the claim was made has no relevance for my assessment that it does not
make a difference.
As I said, you tried so hard to word thing to reduce the change of an
edit war and now you are cheering some along to do the exact
On 6 May 2011 22:16, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The alternative would be to continue using CC-BY-SA in the face of
objections, and continue to misleading users about the effectiveness of the
license.
Still this sad tired old line, please come up with new FUD to keep
things
On 6 May 2011 15:25, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
has no clothes, and there are no little kids around to say Gee, this
relicensing thing ... maybe it's not such a good idea?
Plenty of people have been pointing this out, but those that should be
listening aren't and as a result OSM has
That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa,
especially since the assumption is a derivative is required by the
user to generate any changes made when the source of their changes
would matter just as much.
For example if they are using GPS data all they would use existing
data
On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why
should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the
desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to
sublicense)?
Apache
On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not
your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open
communities.
They also aren't generally the most popular, just like BSD lags behind
Linux,
On 8 April 2011 16:55, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone
could
On 19 January 2011 02:10, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 January 2011 15:48, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
The links below show the wording we will formally release. I will confirm
when it is done. We will then set up and announce mechanism whereby anyone
who has
On 8 January 2011 20:37, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm 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.
On 7 January 2011 23:56, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
requirement. Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes
I was under the assumption that the NZ govt, if not many others,
published data under the same/similar license.
On 8 January 2011 01:33, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
The practice appears limited to Australia and New Zealand. The last figures
I compiled for OSM data imports are:
From what I've been told privately by people on the inside is that
they're not happy that they've been encouraged to
On 8 January 2011 01:21, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
I naturally would prefer the term flexibility rather than indecisiveness
:-) and that it is a highly strategic feature not a bug.
I don't see it as flexibility, I see it as indecisiveness, I can
only imagine how disorganised and a
On 8 January 2011 01:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I keep getting told that the flexibility is in the best interests of
the project, if this were true why is it more common for commercial
entities to require this, where as most other things like the linux
kernel has clearly
On 8 January 2011 03:12, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state You are indicating that, as
far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute
those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). They also
On 5 January 2011 22:15, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Repeated again... per account. The 1.0 version of the CT terms are not
clear, but the intent is per account.
And here I was thinking that contracts are about what's in them... No
matter how much you'd wish and hope they'd
On 5 January 2011 22:21, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
CTs will allways be per account. There is nothing linking seperate accounts
together or even to an actual person. There is only an e-mail address.
Any one person can also create multiple accounts and choose to accept or not
accept
On 5 January 2011 22:28, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Our mapping is (likely) illegal in North Korea and a few other
You have mentioned China, because mapping there is illegal without the
proper permits or whatever you need.
regions. I bet we would not remove the data even
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, whether the
illegal act is shooting Google executives or deliberately distributing
On 5 January 2011 23:53, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Copyright infringement _is_ a criminal offence in England Wales; and the
CTs expressly state that the agreement between OSMF and the user shall be
governed by English law.
I was under the impression that only the US had
On 6 January 2011 00:29, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright
infringement as a criminal offence... This is generally given as a
reason that individuals aren't being sued outside the US for copying
music.
... being sued
On 6 January 2011 10:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
This would not be better at all, it would render the whole idea of
relicensing via Contributor Terms pointless.
This aregument you keep stating about people thinking the data is
owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I
On 4 January 2011 18:40, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in
order to continue to EDIT.
eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless compatible
with CT.
Which brings up the other point of
On 5 January 2011 01:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
(It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
On 5 January 2011 01:54, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit perhaps hard to define. (For
example the evil OSMF could change the license on the Wiki so that Joe the
would-be contributor cannot, for his moral reasons, participate on the Wiki
any
On 5 January 2011 02:16, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
I believe that this underlying spirit of the Contributor Terms fits the
reality of OSM. Already today, there's hardly a way I've created or
That's not the impression I get, take this comment for example:
On 23 December 2010 00:42, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
This interpretation (or at least, the acceptance of it as something
OSM would want to do) is truly evil. I only wonder how widespread it
is among OSM contributors. I hope in good faith that it is held by
very few.
After turning the
On 8 December 2010 18:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
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
On 8 December 2010 10:37, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license
On 8 December 2010 11:08, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Disappointing as ever... [citation needed]
What is disappointing is you can't or won't spend the time to brush up
on the history of the license debate, or when you see a false
statement being made repeatedly and you don't
On 8 December 2010 11:40, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
I have asked for you to say who is lying and where, but you go on and
on with vexatious claims.
What false statements? If they are being made so repeatedly can you
point them out? List archive links prefered.
So you've
On 8 December 2010 11:57, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of
future mappers.
In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence)
openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences
On 25 November 2010 17:39, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact,
along with the other details.
Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed
for factual
On 25 November 2010 09:30, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
3. give the finger to all people anti ODbL
At least you are being honest, which is more than Frederik seems to be
capable of, you don't make any pretense that there was ever any kinda
of democratic process going on and the whole
On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap
community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or
anybody else to stand up for him.
Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than
On 25 November 2010 12:14, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap
community
On 25 November 2010 12:41, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
How charming that you use selective quoting to fabricate a lie of
omission. Viewing the original shows no lie. And that your
fabrication failed
On 1 November 2010 11:44, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Municipalities shouldn't write licenses; it ain't their job. It ain't
their core competence. Their citizens ain't paying for the city to do
license composition and maintenance.
Regardless what we'd like, we should be happy they
On 30 October 2010 00:07, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I have written to the people who donated the data to dual license it
under the oodbl as well as under the creative commons.
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/
That may not be enough, as they would
On 30 October 2010 03:56, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I see, and there is no way around this? So everyone in the world
become bound by the contributor terms? does anything think this is
even feasible?
Those trying to push OSM towards PD think it's feasible and are doing
On 30 October 2010 04:28, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
There appear to be some interesting thoughts about this in the most recent
LWG meeting minutes ( https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk )
in the Contributor Terms Revision section:
Until recently there was no
On 1 October 2010 21:04, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
You're joking. It's a few pints worth of money.
Nice, just insult most people not in a first world nation, that sort
of money is a months worth of wages (or more) to some...
___
legal-talk
On 30 September 2010 18:31, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/30/2010 02:56 AM, John Smith wrote:
Those sorts of comments are made to distract from the real issue, that
they know that the license is most likely incompatible, and because it
most likely won't effect them personally. Yet
On 30 September 2010 21:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
The Contributor Terms are the _standard_ agreement between contributors and
OSMF.
I can't be bothered searching for it and I'm paraphrasing, but
Frederik posted to one of these lists that it was only likely 2 or 3
On 29 September 2010 22:21, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible.
Any reason you specifically didn't mention that OS's lawyer refutes that claim?
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 30 September 2010 07:58, Paul Williams pjwde...@googlemail.com wrote:
or contributor loss), but have felt unhappy about such comments as
those quoted above that the OS data doesn't matter and so it doesn't
matter whether the licence is compatible - I and I am sure many other
people find the
On 30 September 2010 06:34, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
This is about the ODbL being adopted by others, thus showing that it is not
just OSM who believe that it is good.
What about Ed's question, regardless if the information is useful for
OSM or not, could it be imported into OSM?
On 28 September 2010 21:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The question I am asking myself is: Is the ability to import as much
government data as possible really worth the hassle? And my personal answer
is a clear no; because to me, the value of imported data is very small,
almost
On 29 September 2010 02:14, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the mappers I know are not fond of imports. You can mostly
just import data that is already available elsewhere. Data that gets
imported without a vivid community is doomed to get old and useless.
Ok, lets
On 29 September 2010 02:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, lets not confuse issues here, one is to perform the import, the
other is maintenance and updates of the data.
How is maintenance of imported data any different than maintenance of
non-imported data?
On 29 September 2010 02:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
thing is if you have non-imported data, there is usually someone who
is caring for it. If you do imports, there might be someone but mostly
How many people that mapped Haiti still care for that data 6 months later?
On 29 September 2010 04:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
The latter is most definitely 'cared' for 'maintained'. I certainly don't
want to loose the ability to do b) nor loose existing data I've added that
way.
neither do I
Ok, I see my problem before, it was with the
On 21 September 2010 06:38, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
On the other hand, if someone has two accounts, we probably can rely on the
honor system.
Currently it's being suggested that people create a second account so
they can agree to the CTs, this doesn't seem to be the sort of thing
that
On 21 September 2010 08:10, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
CTs are per account. Active Contributors are per person.
Exactly, you agree to the CTs as a person, which then encompasses all
accounts used, unless the wording of the current CTs is changed your
suggestion shouldn't be given.
On 18 September 2010 07:15, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
2) My question was about how the new license/CT is worded *now* not in the
assumptive future.
The problem is the CTs allow the potential for relicensing with a
fairly low barrier, but they don't address what happens with existing
On 17 September 2010 05:25, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
This clashes with the legal advice giving to the Licensing Working
Group in that OS OpenData's license _is_ compatible with ODbL and the
Contributor Terms. Specifically section 4 of the Contributor Terms
provides a
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
