On 7 January 2011 21:56, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
In the case of Nearmap, it is my understanding, Ben might like to comment
or contradict, that level 1 is livable with. The real concern being the
possible that future OSM generations might want to drop share-alike.
It's indeed
At 08:36 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 05:25, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to
do with the end user license:
4. At Your or the copyright owners holders option, OSMF agrees to
attribute You
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.
At 02:20 PM 7/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
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
At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
governmental organisations] and I have updated
IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating
Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to do
with the end user license:
4. At Your or the copyright owners holders option, OSMF agrees to attribute
You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a
web page
