[OSM-legal-talk] It's a shame
Legal people know that an investigation is needed before an accusation can lead to a judge or jury proclaiming 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. Unfortunately, some users are very quick to proclaim guilty, even without knowing the local situation or talking to the person being accused. I'm very happy to answer any investigation questions raised upon edits I make. But please let it be judged by a person who knows the local situation, local open databases available etcetera. In the Dutch situation it's Henk Hoff whom I have faith in since he knows the Dutch situation. Let him contact me on this email adress osm...@gmail.com with any questions about my edits. But please - do not judge OSM'ers anymore without an investigation which also gives OSM'ers like me (spending some 15 hours per week on OSM for more than two years now) a chance to defend themselves. Kind regards, Johan (It's so funny) ps in spite of the ongoing discussion on @talk, I still didn't receive a mail in the normal way (by sending a personal message) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] It's a shame
Next week I will be visiting the Adelaide Hills (South Australia) and was planning to resurvey Mt Barker in order to add the street names to a lot of roads that have not yet had them tagged. However to do so at this stage would be pointless since eithe of two of the three previous editors could effectively auto-delete my work simply by failing to relicence their existing contributions. It is for this reason that I believe clause 3 of the CT is essential. This current situation must not be allowed to happen again. Hopefully by Christmas (another visit to the Adelaide Hills) collaborative mapping will again be possible. Cheers Nick Hocking (nm7s9) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] It's a shame
On 20 August 2010 21:30, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: It is for this reason that I believe clause 3 of the CT is essential. This current situation must not be allowed to happen again. The problem is the scope of section 3, not it's existence. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
