On Subota, 05. Prosinac 2009. 08:13:51 Marjan Vrban wrote:
vrlo jednostavno 1,2 i troznamenkaste oznake su D, 4znamenke - Ž, 5 znamenki
i više L
Čim netko mora znati tu informaciju, karta mi se ne čini jednostavnom za
korištenje. Zašto netko uopće mora znati da se radi o rasponima?
--
Poz,
Mogu reći da je GPSMid odličan, često ga koristim na mobitelu, jedino ima
loš prikaz karte, ni blizu onom od gvSIG-a...
2009/12/3 breakpoint mmatu...@gmail.com
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 10:04 +, Valent Turkovic wrote:
Vrlo ugodno sam se iznenadio kada sam otkrio gvSIG Mini aplikaciju koja
Marko Dimjasevic wrote:
Čim netko mora znati tu informaciju, karta mi se ne čini jednostavnom
za korištenje. Zašto netko uopće mora znati da se radi o rasponima?
Ovo je po meni prilicno jak argument.
___
Talk-hr mailing list
Marko Dimjasevic wrote:
Čim netko mora znati tu informaciju, karta mi se ne čini jednostavnom
za korištenje. Zašto netko uopće mora znati da se radi o rasponima?
Ovo je po meni prilicno jak argument.
___
Talk-hr mailing list
I just discover the entry architect_office in the category amenity
on Map Features [1]. Then I also found a proposal for amenity=lawyer
[2]. Is amenity the righ place/category for such things ?
I'm not a native english speakier but is amenity the right category
for lawyers, architects, designers,
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 16:33, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a native english speakier but is amenity the right category
for lawyers, architects, designers, etc, next after museums,
fountains, stripclubs or borthels ?
We've long since passed the point where amenity is an accurate
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
We've long since passed the point where amenity is an accurate
description for the value that comes after it. In the OpenStreetMap
database amenity is best pronounced as a thingy :)
Is that a reason to not improve
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 17:52, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
We've long since passed the point where amenity is an accurate
description for the value that comes after it. In the OpenStreetMap
database amenity is
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email
about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this
site. If you have not received an email, first please check your
spam folder then, if
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email
about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this
site. If you have not
Pieren wrote:
We've long since passed the point where amenity is an accurate
description for the value that comes after it. In the OpenStreetMap
database amenity is best pronounced as a thingy :)
Is that a reason to not improve things (or try to )?
Is introducing somewhat arbitrary
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote:
Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o
the OSMF can not vote on the license decision?
If so, how are non-OSMF members represented in this vote?
If a non-OSMF member rejects the Contributor Terms, all their contributions
On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote:
quote
An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid)
as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for
voting.
/quote
265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative.
Whatever the
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 21:46, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Pieren wrote:
We've long since passed the point where amenity is an accurate
description for the value that comes after it. In the OpenStreetMap
database amenity is best pronounced as a thingy :)
Is that a reason to not
Tom Hughes schrieb:
On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote:
quote
An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid)
as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for
voting.
/quote
265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way
On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
February
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote:
quote
An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good
standing (paid)
as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal
link for
voting.
/quote
265 persons out
On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
Tom Hughes schrieb:
On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration
Hi!
Just reading:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes
Where user Steve added:
---
What about the 'no' page?
It's mainly full of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and is marked as
inaccurate.
James Livingston schrieb:
On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding
about voting.
I'd say it isn't a vote, it's asking whether you agree to relicense your
contributions under the ODbL subject to the Contributor
El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
opinion.
Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM
data?
May I
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Hi!
Just reading:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Ye
s
Where user Steve added:
---
What about the 'no' page?
It's mainly full of FUD (Fear,
2009/12/5 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion.
Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data?
Are we an
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion.
I'm not allowed to have opinions?
Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote:
SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page as
in
dispute.
If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.
I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here?
There was a dispute, I marked
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
James Livingston schreef:
For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed
Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and
world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au.
As I'm not the
2009/12/5 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
I find the graffiti on the NO page very disturbing. It is intended as a
statement page by those who differ, and those who want to put positive
comments on the new licence should use their own page.
So the REPLY: 's are graffiti?
If a statement is untrue or
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote:
SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page
as in dispute.
If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.
I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here?
Hi,
James Livingston wrote:
For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed
Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and
world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au.
As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I
Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
opinion.
Is this the organization you want to hand over the
Ulf Lamping wrote:
div class=moz-text-flowed style=font-family: -moz-fixedTom Hughes
schrieb:
On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
On Dec 5, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote:
SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page
as in dispute.
If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.
I answered this on
El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
May I remind the OSMF that from the Wiki page[1]:
The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international non-profit
organisation supporting but not controlling the project.
However, the currently planned action in the license change
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, you wrote:
Don't you mean rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it where I
brought it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list?
i have not made personal comments about any one
i suggest you don't either
___
On 05/12/2009 21:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
The proposed licence is not a benefit to Australians in my view.
You have generously qualified this with in my view and I should point
out that I disagree with all the force I can muster.
I spent about two hours this morning writing a pretty detailed
Kai Krueger schrieb:
Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with
an open community?
No, as the previous process has always been pretty open with discussions
on talk, legal-talk, the wiki and some of the mailing lists. How much
more open do you want it to be with
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on the
license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than
myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them,
and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license
2009/12/6 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
2009/12/6 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on
the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems
than myself. They are people that I trust.
John Smith wrote:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years,
on the license
change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than
myself. They are
people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed
downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..
If you call this a
2009/12/6 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They have
said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it.
There has also been a lot of data imported from Government sources
that released data as CC-BY-SA
Who controls OSM? I really am not sure. My current understanding is that OSMF
controls OSM, but calls it supporting: The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an
international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling the
project.
Maybe a better question that will get a less ambiguous
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
The ODbL is overseen by a board which, as well as Jordan, Charlotte
and Clark, also includes Lucie Guibault, a professor of copyright
from the Netherlands, and Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in E-Commerce
Law and consultant to the World Intellectual Property
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
Why not
Shaun McDonald schrieb:
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on
the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than
myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them,
and let them just get on with it. I
2009/12/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
There have been some independent reviews of ODbL.
snip
There is also Andrea Rossato who the Italian OSM community hired
independently to review the license.
I believe he said something like ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems.
Could someone from
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
No sense in wasting everyone's time if the OSMF members aren't going to
agree to it anyway?
I'm pretty sure he meant asking contributors before threatening to
remove their contributions.
It'll still be there. In perfect form for the fork which will
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently
26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in
ODbL licensed
On Dec 5, 2009, at 17:17, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, you wrote:
Don't you mean rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it
where I
brought it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list?
i have not made personal comments about any one
i
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims
this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of
consultations?
How is insulting people going to help things?
___
talk
On Sunday 06 December 2009 02:25:16 Frederik Ramm wrote:
And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot
say whether it's good or bad:
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabank
licentie-versie-10
Basically he is saying that he thinks
Matthew Luehrmann wrote:
Who controls OSM? I really am not sure. My current understanding is that
OSMF controls OSM, but calls it supporting: The OpenStreetMap Foundation
is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling
the project.
Maybe a better question
2009/12/6 Matthew Luehrmann matthew.luehrm...@gmail.com:
Who controls OSM? I really am not sure. My current understanding is that
OSMF controls OSM, but calls it supporting: The OpenStreetMap Foundation
is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Frederik Ramm schreef:
And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot
say whether it's good or bad:
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10
I can... before Arnoud
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently
26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:33 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
It isn't applicable to data in jurisdictions where data can't be
copyrighted. Part of the proposal of switching to the ODbL is to go
*beyond* copyright law by imposing an EULA
Yours c.
Steve
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:43, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims
this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of
consultations?
How is
Yours c.
Steve
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:55, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
And even the licensing debate could be seen
as support even though that indeed has a little bit more of a
controlling element to it. But it is support in that the current license
is broken and inapplicable to geodata as
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.
And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
being and not helping fence sitters one bit.
If you want a dictatorship on the matter say so, otherwise you or
others wanting the change
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Click through type agreements have already been deemed as
unenforceable,
Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the
legal list if you think it's too off-topic)? To my knowledge the
enforceability is spotty and unclear.
Trying
...
I believe he said something like ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems.
Easy example:
With CC-BY-SA this tile
http://c.tile.cloudmade.com/BC9A493B41014CAABB98F0471D759707/1/256/5/16/10.png?1253694005
is also CC-BY-SA.
With ODBL the tile could have a different license including a
On Dec 5, 2009, at 19:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.
And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
being and not helping fence sitters one bit.
Read the
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Read the wikipedia entry on tit for tat, and iterated prisoners dilemma.
That's just it, I'm trying to avoid the conjecture in coming up with
an opinion on if this is a good thing or not for me and my
contributions or not.
ie am I wasting time contributing
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Click through type agreements have already been deemed as
unenforceable,
Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the
legal list if you think it's too
I have been subscribed to the OSM-talk mailing list for about two months now;
this current discussion is the first that I have heard of the license-change
issue. So, if there has been ongoing discussion of the issue in the last
couple of months, it hasn't been on the general list.
--
John F.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 02:31, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
2009/12/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
There have been some independent reviews of ODbL.
snip
There is also Andrea Rossato who the Italian OSM community hired
independently to review the license.
I believe
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
opinion.
I'm not allowed to have
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
I don't think you have at all answered the points in that, and therefore
I stand by the viewpoint that in Australia, ODbL has the best chance of
any open, non-clickwrap licence of protecting OSM's data.
Which is to
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not. And I've asked on the legal list
(so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor Terms
requires also agreeing to the ODbL in ways that purport to reach beyond
copyright
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:40 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote:
I have been subscribed to the OSM-talk mailing list for about two months
now; this current discussion is the first that I have heard of the
license-change issue. So, if there has been ongoing discussion of the issue
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.
And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
being and not helping fence sitters one bit.
If you
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:10 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
I have been subscribed to the OSM-talk mailing list for about two months now;
this current discussion is the first that I have heard of the license-change
issue. So, if there has been ongoing discussion of the issue
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not. And I've asked on the legal
list
(so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor
Terms
I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
individual mappers. I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
concerns so ably, by consulting
Steve,
SteveC wrote:
How is insulting people going to help things?
By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.
I understand that most statements you are responding to seem stupid,
unnecessary or inappropriate to you. You might even think that those who
posted them should really know
Yours c.
Steve
On Dec 5, 2009, at 20:10, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com
wrote:
I have been subscribed to the OSM-talk mailing list for about two
months now; this current discussion is the first that I have heard
of the license-change issue. So, if there has been ongoing
Yours c.
Steve
On Dec 5, 2009, at 20:25, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF
Chairman's
position about other peoples
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when
Richard Weait schrieb:
I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
individual mappers. I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
On Dec 5, 2009, at 20:51, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Steve,
SteveC wrote:
How is insulting people going to help things?
By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.
I understand that most statements you are responding to seem stupid,
unnecessary or inappropriate to
On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:03, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Richard Weait schrieb:
I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, when I
download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the ODbL?
Absolutely nothing.
your email here proves you are aware of the terms of such a download. :-)
for people who haven't so publicly demonstrated
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 19:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.
And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
being and not helping fence sitters one
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, when I
download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the
ODbL?
Absolutely nothing.
your email here proves you are aware of the
On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:15, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 19:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.
And you are coming off just as
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They
have
said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it.
They also said this about the ODbL:
In brief, we believe that the
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a
policy*.
It's pretty stupid but that's their policy. It's like the RIAA have a
closed policy and the consensus is viral in OSM.
Yours c.
Steve
On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:36, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a policy*.
What a non-sense, every academic works with attribution of past work.
Including attribution in testsets and data being available.
You are getting a bit
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a policy*.
PD-like licenses? You mean for databases of facts? Or am I misinterpreting
PD-like?
It's pretty stupid but that's their policy.
Well, you may think
On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:52, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a
policy*.
What a non-sense, every academic works with attribution of past work.
Including
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Shaun McDonald schrieb:
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on
the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems
than myself. They are people that I trust.
On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a
policy*.
PD-like licenses? You mean for databases of facts? Or am I
misinterpreting PD-like?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:00 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com
st...@asklater.com wrote:
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a
policy*.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, when I
download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the
ODbL?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM would
even consider resorting to browse-through license agreements in order
to
impose
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Matt Amos schreef:
we're talking about moving to another
license with very similar requirements, but a different
implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would
really help me if i could understand your position.
Its honestly
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM
would
even consider
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
the agreement doesn't kick in from the reading of the license, it
kicks in when you do something that only the license would permit you
to do.
The whole basis of the switch away from CC-BY-SA is that there is doubt as
to
1 - 100 of 214 matches
Mail list logo
