2011/6/6 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
wrote:
On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Frederik the great is only interested in remapping Silesia
(Schlesien)
Hi,
Mike Dupont wrote:
but seriously, the license team is not concerned about porting the
licenses to other jurisdictions, but once you have signed the new
contributor terms, they will not ever have to ask you again. This
process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing
anything
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move?
Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and
contributor terms.
___
legal-talk mailing list
Hi,
Maarten Deen wrote:
Well the license team does not *gain* anything from you signing the
contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return?
The license team is part of OSMF and OSMF does gain a lot in signing the
contributor terms. It gains the right to exploit the data in the
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:48:54 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Maarten Deen wrote:
Well the license team does not *gain* anything from you signing
the
contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return?
The license team is part of OSMF and OSMF does gain a lot in signing
the
On 06/06/11 14:52, Maarten Deen wrote:
But the current action is: accept or lose the ability to map. That is
close to coercion and not a valid base to claim that 2/3's agree to this.
It is not anywhere near coercion. OSM is not the state, and you can map
wherever else you like.
- Rob.
Hi,
Maarten Deen wrote:
OSMF gains the right do do anything with the data as long as it does not
breach copyright etc. Certainly there is a gain there. It gains the
right to exploit the data.
But can OSMF exploit the data more than anybody else?
The contributor terms say Subject to Section
this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6447563.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
It is kind of ironic that people who use the accept the CT question to
vote on the transition to ODBL get told that this is not a vote if they
think ODBL is the correct licence for OSM but that they should only indicate
if
The problem I have is a bit different.
Someone (who has actively declined the CT) has been using nearmap to trace
in some roads under construction in the Canberra area. Some of these roads
are now complete and open to the public.
It would be pointless of me to add information to the nearmapped
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 them
(for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse 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
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 of
data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT,
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 of
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
Sadly I agree.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:19, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem I have is a bit different.
Someone (who has actively declined the CT) has been using nearmap to trace in
some roads under construction in the Canberra area. Some of these
On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing
mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just
holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply
wanted to delay their decision until later.
that the relicensing
process will produce in the data.
Kai
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6441026.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com
I don't think that edit wars to deliberately change the licence status of bits
of
map are the way forward - for either side. It's just as unacceptable from the
pro-ODbL camp as from the pro-CC camp.
However, I can understand that if mappers believe that large amounts of data
will
be deleted
On 5-6-2011 2:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Any misunderstanding in this area will lead to friction: mapper A
thought he still had time to reconsider; but mapper B goes ahead and
deletes/re-maps A's work (possibly with less precision or other things
that A doesn't like). A, who intended to stay with
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
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 of
data
On 5 June 2011 10:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some
who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last
minute;
As far as I can tell, doing that is the only way to say I don't like the
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing
mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just
holding out until the last minute;
23 matches
Mail list logo
