On 30 July 2010 21:27, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2010 04:48:03 pm Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Don't be fooled; the small changeset comment that you enter when
>> uploading stuff will be read by many people. Done well, changeset
>> comments are tremendously helpful.
>
> helpful rem
On 30 July 2010 21:15, Mike N. wrote:
> Every Smartphone OSM data consumer I've looked at has been unusable because
> of tagging interpretation. Compared to OSM, data consumers seem to be very
> inflexible and unaware of any but the most rigid tag schemes that haven't
> changed in the past year
On 30 July 2010 16:51, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> Provided the program is maintained. People may use programs not
> maintained any more or they may be not able to upgrade or they wouldn't
> know they need to upgrade. Things will just stop working for them,
> without a notice.
Is this an objection t
On 30 July 2010 04:54, Toby Murray wrote:
> If there IS a change for medical stuff, I would personally rather see
> the medical=* proposal be used.
At this stage it'd be nice to sort out the emergency=* issue before
trying to tackle anything else :)
I agree with Chris that it probably isn't a go
On 30 July 2010 04:09, Ian Dees wrote:
> I don't understand this argument. Doesn't every tag change anywhere "break
> every editor/renderer/search/data user" whether or not you think it is
> correct?
It's slightly amusing how it comes up every now and then about what to
do about depreciating tags
On 30 July 2010 03:35, Chris Hill wrote:
> You have already changed amenity=ambulance_station to
> emergency=ambulance_station, which was not listed above, so you have already
> started to make these worldwide changes.
It wasn't documented at all on the wiki, at all, so if it was so
important why
On 30 July 2010 02:59, Chris Hill wrote:
> Firstly, not all hospitals are emergency hospitals, so I think that is a bad
> idea.
Point taken...
> Secondly John, you seem to have unilaterally decided to make this change,
> and actually implemented some of it in the course of an afternoon. Where di
On 29 July 2010 22:44, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> My guess is because proper SSL certs aren't cheap and you need to
> implement it on server side.
There is a number of free options, I think godaddy offers certs for
free to non-profits, but I think the claim before was CPU cost, not
cert cost.
Sinc
On 28 July 2010 01:04, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> maybe this could be treated more general? It would be really appealing
> to have localized subway/lightrail-station-symbols
Depending how much effort you want to put into this, you could also
render customised POI icons unique to chain stores, b
On 27 July 2010 10:47, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I can find no reference to 'junction=approach' in the wiki. What does this
>> signify?
>
> Obviously it was used to suppress road names and oneway arrows.
I did something similar with link=yes which came up in a tagging
thread a few weeks ago and see
On 26 July 2010 04:56, David Earl wrote:
> * Tag Central - a schema for OpenStreetMap
Do you know about the "default" proposal?
It seems to try to solve the same problem by stuffing default values
into state/country polygons/relations, rather than needing an addition
database or API or
ht
On 25 July 2010 22:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> actually I'd like different styles by country (with fallback to a
> region standard, say per continent or sth. similar) but then not on
> separated layers but stitched together as one singular map. You could
> have local road colours and ref-mar
On 21 July 2010 02:02, Richard Weait wrote:
> Should we continue to name the osm.org tile layers by the renderers
> they use? Is overloading the terms mapnik and osmarender as both a
> tile layer, style file and rendering library confusing?
The reason it is overloaded is to keep it short, but at
On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies
> who have signed up to the Contributor Terms)..
Erm since OSM-F does run OSM.org the old contributor agreement saying
you agree to license your work under cc-by-sa wou
On 20 July 2010 19:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'm unwilling to continue the discussion on this level. Have a good time.
Sounds like par of the course, you refuse to even think about being
more flexible for current contributors, at least you aren't throwing
personal insults yet.
_
On 20 July 2010 19:07, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I don't share your sentiment that providing a license change path for the
> future actually throws away any good work. If the new license works well for
Then what do you call it when most of the data for Australia would be
incompatible, along with any
On 20 July 2010 18:50, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process
> while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid respect.
> Telling people that they are stupid and their ideas crap is not a good way
> to move forward.
I do
On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so
> far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely
> respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section
> 3 practically strips all this g
On 20 July 2010 18:17, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT
> Section 3, even if it is no. But please without "PD crowd is mighty"
> crap
Hmmm so it seems that Fredrick thinks it's ok to loose people as long
as they aren't from the pro-P
On 20 July 2010 16:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot
> be viewed in isolation.
Why not?
It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked...
> I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members
On 20 July 2010 09:43, Simon Biber wrote:
> So can these specific contributor terms be available for anyone who wants to
> contribute in Australia? At a guess, perhaps 90% of active mappers in
> Australia
> have used NearMap as one of their sources and are therefore unable to agree
> to
> the
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number
> of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
> the minority ;)
I lo
On 20 July 2010 00:41, SteveC wrote:
> Gun to your head?
It certainly feels like it from my point of view...
> All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG.
There is definitely communications problems here, not to mention
conflicting agendas at work, you can't please everyone all
On 20 July 2010 00:26, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
> to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
> providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?
You also have both the Australian and New Zealand (no doubt oth
On 19 July 2010 23:43, Anthony wrote:
> Then I don't see what's wrong with CC-BY-SA.
There is no proof there is anything wrong with it, just conjecture and
speculation it might not be good enough.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.or
On 19 July 2010 23:38, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
> with what is on the table now.
Which many people cannot legally agree to, even if we do agree with
the ODBL. It seems to be a mad dash to force people down this path,
and I'm s
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number
> of people than all of
On 19 July 2010 22:02, Ed Avis wrote:
> they can get away with) think twice before appropriating OSM data, what is the
> evidence for the claim that the current licence is broken?
I think SteveC mentioned Nike, but how's that different from someone
in breach of GPL, didn't anyone talk to Nike and
On 19 July 2010 20:05, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
> wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
> at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
> license change is n
On 19 July 2010 12:35, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
> contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
> namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others.
> Perhaps this should not merely be i
On 19 July 2010 12:07, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give
> them as little power as possible over the data and its license.
Just ignore the rants, some people are just venting frustration.
Although it'll be interesting to know w
On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait wrote:
> I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this
> thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is
> firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But
> no quotations attributed to NearMap, no
On 19 July 2010 07:59, SteveC wrote:
> Okay - you're saying that nearmap's concern is attribution?
Surprisingly no, they don't require attribution, which is weird in and
of itself, but do require any derived map data to be made available
under a share alike license, so that they can make use of i
On 19 July 2010 06:44, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> So, problem is, while ODBL is fine as SA license (for data that is),
> CT requires to give OSMF rights to republish data under license which
> so far by CT can be also non-share-alike, right?
The CT is also likely to conflict with cc-by data...
>
On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is
> share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though:
> 1) Why we need CT in first place
> 2) What section 3 is about
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contribu
On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC wrote:
> On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSC wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to
>>> "produced works" - that would enc
On 19 July 2010 05:37, Richard Weait wrote:
> You are creating yet another theoretical situation, John. Suddenly,
> in your perspective, the community is clamouring for the next license
> change and the next license change after that? I don't see it
> happening.
If you are going to get picky at
On 19 July 2010 05:17, John Smith wrote:
> On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait wrote:
>> Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical
>> situation that you have created.
>
> I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push
&
On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait wrote:
> Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical
> situation that you have created.
I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push
a change to CC0 after the CTs are agreed to.
_
On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSC wrote:
> Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to
> "produced works" - that would encourage companies to give back.
Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending
to produced works, and the ODBL has been drafted spe
On 19 July 2010 04:11, SteveC wrote:
> The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
> basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to
> contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second
> think it would be nuts because the
On 19 July 2010 04:08, SteveC wrote:
> Do you think nearmap are being reasonable?
>
> I don't think they are.
Why are we changing to another share alike license if this isn't
reasonable? I fail to see the logic here.
> There are a variety of downsides with working with open communities - one of
On 19 July 2010 03:56, SteveC wrote:
> We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with
> everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and
> were just waiting for the actual changeover.
That covers current licenses, what about if OSM goes CC0/P
On 19 July 2010 04:02, Sami Dalouche wrote:
> If the move is for pure theoretical, GNU/Stallman-like ideology, then it
> is likely to create way more damage than it would save.
> However, if the move is about saving the project from a legal
> perspective, then it's probably better to start tacklin
On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC wrote:
> John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that
> 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen
> at any point.
The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map
data being s
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC wrote:
> It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we
> should do, so they can just use our data.
Since you're bringing up Google, what about Yahoo, any official word
from them on ODBL or the new CTs?
___
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC wrote:
> Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all
> the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just
> look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing
> and MapQuest's announcem
On 18 July 2010 22:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing
> effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it
> seriously?
Most likely ODBL is fine, it's the CTs that is the biggest hurdle.
___
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Simon Ward wrote:
> This also shows that simply asking if contributors will allow their
> contributions to come under the ODbL is not enough. I imagine many have
That may be ok, but the CTs go a step further and have future licenses
as being fairly open ended, which makes
On 18 July 2010 21:43, Simon Ward wrote:
> Is this an issue with the third (licensing/relicensing/sublicensing)
> clause? I never fully agreed with it in the first place.
Yup, the license could be changed to a non-share alike license in
future, and some people are trying to push things toward PD
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
data from Nearmap.
___
talk mailing list
talk@op
On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith wrote:
> but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an
> email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either
> that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several
> rural
On 18 July 2010 20:31, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask them for their
> agreement?
It kind of rubs me the wrong way when anyone brings up problems and
the first response (and usually the only one) is to always fob off the
work and expect those e
On 18 July 2010 12:10, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> The admin boundaries don't get moved with road/railway realignment and
> therefore without change from the original source we should not be moving
> them. So if they are not connected to railways/roads etc then errors will
> not be introduced.
In t
On 18 July 2010 09:49, Liz wrote:
> The original Murray River trace was either made by swampwallaby using vmap or
> by a few of us tracing from Landsat.
> The only surveyed points then would have been bridges and bridge piers.
Ross' problem was that the Murray River is using ABS data, which for
t
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith wrote:
> On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
>> Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
>
> I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
> has the wrong interpretation as to th
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
> Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong interpretation as to the scope.
___
talk mailing lis
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
> I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
> the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why d
On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov wrote:
> Consider two cases:
>
> 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
> view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
> 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to chang
On 17 July 2010 14:59, Steve Bennett wrote:
> As John Smith has pointed out, actually finding out the real status of
> the boundary could be a lot of work, but it would be valuable.
I also said no one wants to spend the time and effort on it.
__
On 15 July 2010 20:28, James Livingston wrote:
> How all that will work in practice, I don't know.
That's the point, no one can know at this point, and if people are
afraid to vote for odbl because of this things are likely to be a lot
worst off.
___
t
On 15 July 2010 04:56, Richard Weait wrote:
> [I re-added attribution for John Smith that appears to have been
> dropped during context trimming.]
Pretty sure Kai was responsible for this sentiment on the legal list thread.
> Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active contribut
On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait wrote:
> What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable?
I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears
in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone
that spent even a few hours working to make OSM data bet
On 14 July 2010 19:08, Andy Allan wrote:
> See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if
> you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far.
How about defining some specific points about what an acceptable loss
of data will be, possibly on a per region bas
On 14 July 2010 17:59, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me
> around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my
> understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and
> follow our judgement.
As pointed ou
There has been a slightly disturbing thread on the legal-talk list
about defining critical mass, so far things aren't any closer to being
defined and statistics are being abused to suit positions:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003453.html
At this stage I'll not be
On 13 July 2010 08:51, Alan Mintz wrote:
> Is operator correct, though? Many well-known chains are franchises, where
> the actual operator is a company or individual that is named on the business
> license or health certificate.
The confusion has probably come about from usage on ATMs then being
On 13 July 2010 07:18, Alan Mintz wrote:
> I think operator has been mis-used. It appears in a lot of JOSM presets
> where I believe it is incorrect.
This is an argument over the use of english as a language and tags
that look like english words and how people interrupt them.
___
On 13 July 2010 07:25, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
> Side note: John, Do you seriously check health certificates before
> tagging restaurants?
I don't usually tag name, just operator, I just mentioned that to
point out the name is easy to locate if people did want to tag it.
__
On 13 July 2010 06:59, Pieren wrote:
> I would say the exact opposite. The tag 'name' is what you see on the
> facade. The (optional) tag 'operator' is the name of the chain but we should
> not suggest to not use 'name' otherwise we will have different tagging when
> restaurants/hotels are part or
On 13 July 2010 06:25, Pieren wrote:
> Then now the question : how can we determin if we use 'name' or 'operator'
> if it is one or the other ? e.g. restaurants or hotel might or might not be
> part of a chain, thus might be tagged with 'name' or 'operator'. Shall know
> the door to ask ?
name v
On 11 July 2010 06:43, Chris Dombroski wrote:
> I ask because I think this is the cause of stupid GPS directions at times
> "make a left, followed by a slight right"
Isn't that a problem with the routing software, not the data?
___
talk mailing list
ta
On 10 July 2010 07:56, Alex Mauer wrote:
> Sure, but it’s beta anyway, so I think people wouldn’t be expecting too
> much from it. Still nice that they render it at least.
I wonder how often they'll update their DB/tiles...
___
talk mailing list
talk@
Mapquest is also planning to spent $1mill to improve OSM data in the US:
http://vector1media.com/spatialsustain/openstreetmap-gains-great-traction-this-week.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 7 July 2010 05:51, Nakor wrote:
> If the river/road/... is the actual boundary, shouldn't the same way be used
> for both instead of having duplicate ways? I've seen this done in some
> places (Ohio IIRC)
The boundary might be similar to other features, but unless you like
reading a lot of leg
On 6 July 2010 23:07, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
> We are actually planning to do this again, but no guarantees, that's why
> it's not mentioned yet :)
If they can't be streamed live, are they still going to be recorded?
___
talk mailing list
talk@open
On 6 July 2010 18:48, Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
> the project to the outside world. If you would ask ten people today what
> openstreetmap is about you would get ten different answers, that is what you
> can also see from this thread.
If you asked those same 10 people what they want from a map, yo
On 6 July 2010 17:22, Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
> I understand that is was decided by the OSMF board that funding is supposed
> to become a more structured activity. What would you say to someone
> interested in funding? "OpenStreetMap doesn't have a strategic goal; it's
> never had one. We have no
On 25 June 2010 07:56, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
>>>
>>> You could always have highway=link.
>>
>> But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying
>> link does not work.
>
> highway=*
> link=yes
I just found a good use cas
On 5 July 2010 19:29, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> actually I don't understand why so many people complain about mapping
> trees. Trees have generally a longer life cycle than buildings. I like
> trees and I like to have them in the map. Why should I map postboxes?
> I hardly send any letters.
Th
On 5 July 2010 10:45, john whelan wrote:
> Generally speaking you could bot an area with the default speed limit then
> just tag the higher speed roads.
You don't need to bot anything, you can easily do this sort of thing in JOSM...
> The bigger problem is how do you stop some teenager from chan
On 5 July 2010 12:37, Ben Last wrote:
> Geocoding isn't freely available (unless your needs are small-scale).
> Housenumbers are the key to geocoding addresses, and without geocoding many
> useful applications of a map are lost, or at least made more difficult. So
> I'm reasonably excited about
On 5 July 2010 06:02, Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
> How do you want to find the right licensing, funding and communication
> approach (to avoid the word strategy) without having a strategic goal?
There is fundamental differences between facilitating volunteers and
running a company, volunteers aren'
On 5 July 2010 04:57, Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
> My personal opinion is that the strengths of OpenStreetMap lies in the large
> decentral knowledge. And I think it would make more sense to steer some of
> this local power in a certain direction. I consider it a waste of resource
> if people map tr
On 5 July 2010 00:16, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> True, but paper maps are usually not printed at a scale where including
> street numbers are practical.
Other than street directories?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreet
On 4 July 2010 23:00, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> I agree about the importance of being able to find a location via its postal
> address. One of the most frequent reasons for looking up a location on an
> online map is so you can find out where on a long street a particular address
> is located.
On 4 July 2010 22:17, john whelan wrote:
> Rendering or routing?
routing...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 4 July 2010 18:28, Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
> It is because of other reasons that major companies are not using OSM.
If companies already pay for data with more restrictive licenses than
OSM offers, then I can only assume the license issue is just a
sticking point because the data might not be
On 4 July 2010 14:34, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> The point is that *no* major company actually said, 'if you switch to
> ODbL then we will use it', while it is a claim companies don't use OSM
> because of cc-by-sa. I don't see the problem solved, do you?
I doubt I'd make it very public if a licens
On 4 July 2010 07:22, Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
>
>>What would make OSM successful in your eyes?
>>
>>I thought one of the goals was to have OSM used more widely?
>
> This is the right type of question but you need to create an even more basic
> understanding: I haven't seen a common understanding
On 4 July 2010 04:21, john whelan wrote:
> Many users are only interested in the local city and not too worried about
> having the latest version of the map. People have used three year old
> printed maps quite happily for years and for foot, public transport and
> cycling a cached map on the dev
On 4 July 2010 14:15, John Smith wrote:
> On 4 July 2010 04:21, john whelan wrote:
>> Many users are only interested in the local city and not too worried about
>> having the latest version of the map. People have used three year old
>> printed maps quite happily for years
On 4 July 2010 02:07, john whelan wrote:
> I was only thinking of using the local computer resources for the local
> user, not going cloud.
For that specific problem you still have a large chunk of data to
transfer before the local computer resource can do something useful
with it, the bigger the
On 4 July 2010 01:56, Dermot McNally wrote:
> On 3 July 2010 16:54, John Smith wrote:
>
>> All that has happened is the arbitrary decisions have been deferred to
>> someone else, in this case some government entity... That doesn't mean
>> highways are classified b
On 4 July 2010 01:46, john whelan wrote:
> Since a fair number of home computers pcs these days have quad cores, 6 or
> more gigs of memory and 64 bit operating systems, perhaps it might make
> sense to come up with a Windows stand alone solution and decentralise the
> server computing requirement
On 4 July 2010 01:47, Dermot McNally wrote:
> Here they are:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Ireland#Highway
>
> We do have a dilemma for how to fit 3 grades of local road into
> tertiary and unclassified, but the criteria are otherwise objective.
All that has happened is the a
On 4 July 2010 01:34, Dermot McNally wrote:
> On 3 July 2010 14:14, John Smith wrote:
>> On 3 July 2010 23:09, Dermot McNally wrote:
>>> It's not OK to arbitrarily tag highways. But different parts of the
>>> world have established different norms according to
On 3 July 2010 23:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> But the underlying idea of property is required for attribution as well; you
> cannot force people to provide attribution without first claiming that the
> data is yours and yours alone and only by following your license will people
> be allowed to use
On 3 July 2010 23:16, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 2. Imports and government cooperation are not crucial to OSM's success.
What would make OSM successful in your eyes?
I thought one of the goals was to have OSM used more widely? If so
government users should be given the same consideration as any othe
On 3 July 2010 23:16, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 4. It is my personal opinion that advocates of share-alike licenses are
> driven less by the desire to create something great, but more by the desire
> to ringfence, protect, defend what they think is their property against
> imaginary powers of evil. I
301 - 400 of 1754 matches
Mail list logo
