On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if a
little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a single
way (and also a usability nightmare in editors). But I also don’t think
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/19/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if
a
little silly for the majority
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/19/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in
the
present, using the tools we have now.
That's not what I'm trying to do, because I don't see the point
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/19/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
What project would you recommend? I'm looking for a project that
creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to
anyone who wants them. Not one that makes maps
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work. And as renderers can
only handle ways for now…
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
from
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand no renderer or other data user I've heard of is
being negatively affected by the presence of bicycle=avoid so perhaps it
doesn't matter.
It seems dangerous to use an access tag for something other than
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if the law is implicit? Is there consensus whether or not to tag
implicit laws?
Yes, we tag implicit speed limits (along with a source:maxspeed
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/16/2010 06:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson
baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote:
On 10/16/2010 06:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
So would you have no
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 2:29 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
http://miamichaela.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/moron.jpg
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:Anthonydiff=391046808oldid=391046671
___
talk mailing list
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Fabio Alessandro Locati
fabioloc...@gmail.com wrote:
In a couple of days Steve and the community ambassador [1] are leaving
CloudMade... is happening something big?
Sure. Mapquest.
___
talk mailing list
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Anybody object to adopting a Code of Conduct for behaviour with
OpenStreetMap mailing lists, fora, blogs, and other communication
channels?
It's a good idea in theory, but I'm afraid it wouldn't work in
practice within
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:36 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Oh hardly. All I have done is call out Anthony and link to the things he
denies about wikipedia.
1) You've done much more than that, publicly insulting many people
other than myself.
2) Even if your claims about me were true
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Randy Meech randy.me...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you expect that?
Because it would be in their best interest to do so.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
CC-BY-SA would still allow them to restrict access to the site, e.g. force
users to log in or use an API key, which to my knowledge they don't.
Well, no, of course not. If they did that virtually no one would use
them.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:02 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:22:56 -0600
SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Anthony is just trolling. He's been kicked out of wikipedia, as noted
multiple times. Ignore him
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
For example, a 'bot that does nothing but fix spelling in keys,
changes Amenity to amenity, but the 'bot does not answer the mandatory
relicensing question. Should we revert their changes back to Amenity?
As another
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If one million
users each make a non-copyrightable contribution to OSM under CC-BY-SA then
I can take those one million contributions and use them in any way I want
because if they are not copyrightable then CC-BY-SA
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
Am 02.10.2010 14:36, schrieb Valent Turkovic:
I agree that it is a grey zone, but who will say that its illegal?
OSM doesn't accept data from grey zones
It'll be interesting to see how the ODbL switchover takes place, then.
If the contributor terms change, will there be two separate lists
kept, or does the list get reset, or what?
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
as part of the voluntary relicensing phase of the move to ODbL,
existing contributors have had the ability to
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Prado, Renato (R.P.)
rpr...@visteon.com wrote:
One image is worth a thousand words:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwFnmupPSmD2eqpE0dN0S9WlG0s-FzF
rbr4gQzMYlkuvkwILkt=1usg=__9kS2vS-zZAo9ndGB4HU-H8foRaw=
As per my understanding, this should qualify as
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Prado, Renato (R.P.) rpr...@visteon.com wrote:
Hello you all.
This is my first message here, please let me know if I am making any
mistake regarding the use of this mailing list.
After some reading of the license-related pages in the OSM wiki, I still
cannot
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
At worst we have conflicting reports. I'll take
legal advice over reported email comments in that case, though.
That's fine for the half dozen (?) of you who have access to that
legal advice. But for the tens of thousands of
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Personally I think it's time to consider kickbanning the trolls with the fake
names.
TimSC is a fake name? If so, what's SteveC?
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
I am Assuming Good faith. ;-)
I don't think the emails I read on this list are lies. But that's a
lot different from thinking that they're correct.
To wit
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony-6 wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Unless it connects to other things that do need to be edited, anyway
(boundaries which can't be obtained by surveying obviously don't
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In the particular case we were talking about data that cannot be
obtained by surveying (*).
[...]
(*) I actually can't think of any boundary data for which
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
You are assuming that any such data will be available in an online source
that can be queried
during the rendering process. This won't necessarily be the case.
Why does it have to be online? You can use a downloaded version.
For
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
There's an iron rod in the ground in the
northeast corner of my property boundary. To the extent the position
of that iron rod currently differs
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that my property boundary can be surveyed.
I have a survey of it!
So is your point that everything (relatively permanent
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Yes our legal council believes CT/ODbL is compatible. The lawyer did
supply a breakdown and reasoning why he believes it is compatible. BUT
the Contributor Terms are currently being revised and will need
further
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Instead of importing data, data should be mixed in at the rendering stage.
It really depends on the data. If the data can be imported in a form
which is already commonly used for non-imported data, I'd say it
should be
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 13:44, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, if keeping stuff in sync is practically impossible, a good
import is probably going to have to be manual (if you can't keep stuff
in sync
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'd say that anyone who can devise a general tool which
can merge all the different foreign databases together has thereby
rendered OSM obsolete.
...at least in any jurisdictions without sweat-of-the-brow. Why
bother with OSM
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
I *don't* mean that they could do it *automatically*. Distributed
version control systems don't do that either, you always need a human
to look at the result to see if it's sane.
The problem with imports that
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
PS: I don't think the US is going to be a wasteland in terms of OSM
community forever. I just think that without the TIGER import they'd have
less data but much more community today.
I think the relative lack of OSM
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO imports are at the best in these cases:
- the data cannot be obtained by surveying (eg, administrative boundaries)
Wow, really? I'd say that's the worst time to do an import. Why
import it if you can't edit it,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:04 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2010 13:58, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO imports are at the best in these cases:
- the data cannot be obtained
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:04 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 30 September 2010 13:58, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO imports
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2010 14:08, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
If it doesn't need to be edited, then it shouldn't be imported.
Why not if it enhances the database?
Enhances the database how?
I actually agree
Regarding TIGER, On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean that we don't have *anything* currently that can take:
1) A foreign database as it was X years ago, each object having
some UID.
2) A foreign database as it is *now*, each
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically,
why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data?
OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later
under
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/23/2010 01:52 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically,
why does OSMF need special
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
My question is why do the contributors have to allow OSMF to license
their contributions under BY-SA and ODbL (and DbCL, don't forget about
DbCL). Why can't the contributors do that themselves?
And actually, BY-SA *contains
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I guess clause 2 is redundant. It would be sufficient to simply say
contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL.
Except that Clause
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:43 PM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
I looked at changeset
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5853571 and I noticed
the page says Has the following 79290 nodes: ... Has the following
15862 ways:
Isn't there supposed to be a limit of 5 elements per
Since you've mentioned the tendency to be contentious, hopefully this
one won't go overboard :-)
So that +1 to No imports for now.
-Original Message-
From: Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
To: Anthony G. Balico anthony.bal...@gmail.com
Cc: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:26:35 +0100
Hi BlueArrow,
axk has sent you a message through OpenStreetMap with the subject Re: Re: Re:
NGA-GNS uploads:
==
hey anthony,
got your msg, tnx. i'm on travel d comin 9 days and only have very limited
internet connectivity from my cellfon, thats why i
A bit off-topic, but new bridges caught my attention :-)
Mapped this on-going bridge construction for some time now
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.66606lon=121.07075zoom=17layers=M
I, too, don't have any idea how this will connect to Katipunan Avenue.
Only in OSM?
-Original
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
barrier=gate states that there's a gate.
Doesn't it also state that there's a barrier?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
barrier=gate states that there's a gate.
Doesn't it also state that there's a barrier?
Nevermind. I see it is listed under access nodes
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
with my eyes firmly on the upcoming license change, I wonder how we are
going to deal with people who have imported data which is suitable from a
license point of view, but whom we cannot reach or who do not agree to
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 16/09/2010 01:12, John Smith wrote:
This happens all the time, new CDs are released of out of copyright
music that copy is then re-protected.
Would that protection only apply to the physical characteristics of the
Helping out trace over the uploaded gpx's. My small share to your
awesome community project.
Hope you guys had a good time collecting traces yesterday.
-Original Message-
From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com
To: osm-ph talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Cavite
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2010 02:26, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Probably depends what court you sue in.
It shouldn't matter _where_ you sue. In principle at least the court
seized of the matter should apply the usual principles
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
And then the ODbL says you can do certain things provided you meet
certain conditions?
Yes. DB right covers the whole
Maybe. OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
I think that it's the same with OSM: DbCL ensures that OSM can apply ODbL to
the result of combining all the individual
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
If its the case that OSMF doesn't have a database right in the
contents of its database, then, logically, that right would be jointly
owned by all contributors.
Ah, I see there is a provision for this in the EU database
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/7 ed...@billiau.net:
I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to
discover that this won't extend to Australia.
does this count, given that the contract (CT) is British law?
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/07/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
Maybe. OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably have
a pretty tough time claiming that it is the maker of the database.
They are the maker of the current database
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 September 2010 16:51, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, if a joint database right works like joint copyright, it's
fairly useless. Any joint owner of the database right would have full
sub-licensable rights
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it?
Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL
is better than ODbL.
OSM ways aren't generally representations of artistic works, though.
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 02:58 PM, Anthony wrote:]
Unless you're
talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
database, anyway.
See thread title. ;-)
Okay...Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.
The answer from ODC seems
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
But the extract is not the database. It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.
Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.
Agreed. All I'm saying is that ODbL appears to be equivalent to BY-SA
in this sense, not that it covers less (though, the DbCL stuff might,
see my next
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
AFAICT the DbCL reduces the effective copyright level of the contents of the
database to that of facts.
It's a great answer by Jordan Hatcher. It rests on the assumption
that OSM consists solely of factual data (or, at
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
Obviously those who created the current version of CT think that it is
a good idea,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:). Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.
The ODbL itself does not draw
If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.
See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.
LOL, I hope you go with that definition.
Actually, I liked an
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 09/02/2010 05:09 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
If ODbL were CC-BY-SA for databases, I'd be in favor of it.
+1
ODbL *is* share-alike for databases, with attribution.
What it isn't
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
So BY-SA is not reciprocal in every use case at every conceptual level of
abstraction either. And there are cases where this doesn't fit people's
expectations, notably in illustration (photographic and otherwise) as I've
said.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
C'mon, that's what weak copyleft means. Not viral for some types of
derived works.
If that is indeed the definition of weak copyleft - and I'd like you to
cite a source on that - then we're
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is
therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without clashing. And
the user knows this
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the
new license - not exactly in love with it, but content is a good word I
think
When did you come to that conclusion, and why? Weren't you opposed
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the
contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for
people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: Well of
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to
databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps
however
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
maps are expressly treated as artistic works by s.4(2)(a) of the
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (to give a UK perspective).
Pretty much the same thing in the US. pictorial, graphic, and
sculptural works are included
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Also proceeding is the discussion of exactly what edits should be
treated in what way during the license change[1]. So if you care one
way or the other if a spell-check 'bot that changes tag spelling
should be considered
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:44 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious as to what specifically is stopping them with the current
license, because the current license hasn't stopped MS or MapQuest
from using OSM's data...
It's that pesky ShareAlike part, I'm sure. When looking
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone wrote:
take the coordinates from Google
Earth/Maps.
I will not. That is a non-free source, the same reason I do not
look/consider Wikimapia(google maps based) or any other proprietary
maps.
OSM may
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:52 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to
databases more than 2.0. It explicitly applies to things like maps
however (possibly this only means maps as images though)
Well, it explicitly applies to
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:40, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com
wrote:
Someone wrote:
take the coordinates from Google
Earth/Maps.
I
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony:
What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq
has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has
copyright.
Iran's copyright protects only works by Iranians
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence
'Jane Smith' might have committed that would cause you to want her to be
banned. She is clearly posting under a fake name: so are at least
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright
assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of
upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and and later
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/31/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
So that's all allowed? Okay then. Let the games begin. I can create
a few extra gmail accounts to troll the list with too.
I think it's more that we should ignore (people who we
[quote]
The project is similar to OpenStreetMap (OSM), but unlike OSM which
provides its map data under a Creative Commons license, Google obtains
... a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and
non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish,
publicly perform,
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
How does one decliner-changeset in the
middle of a chain of accepter-changestes effect the future data if the
decliner made one position change, and subsequent editors made further
position changes?
I'd say usually it
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the
last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter positioned it
anywhere in the history, delete
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
accepter was modified
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
With a leaky license like the CC-By-SA, the project as a whole gets the worst
of
both worlds, PD and share-alike.
And with ODbL, they get the worst of three worlds, PD, share-alike,
and EULA hell.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit
of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take
the data and just use it, but then it becomes much harder for them to
in turn
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
Production.
Are there any moderators here?
Can we get this troll banned please.
___
legal-talk mailing
501 - 600 of 1311 matches
Mail list logo
