On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to change to ODBL, if that
John Smith schrieb:
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong interpretation as to the scope.
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Michael Barabanov schrieb:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data.
On 14 July 2010 14:05, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
I.e. can the legal advice only be shared among people actually on the
LWG conference call, and not all OSMF members?
Who can be on the call - LWG members, any OSMF member, or anyone involved
in the project? Actually, I
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 13:05, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
On 14/07/2010, at 10:28 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of
well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive
international project in
