On 01/09/2010 10:22, Andy Allan wrote:
...leading to simply unbelievable volumes of email[3].
Too whinge purely because you can't deal with a few emails is
childishness in itself.
Dave F.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
On 09/01/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myers wrote:
"The devil is in the details."
CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print...
So does BY-SA. And you should see GNU's GPL/copyright waiver/copyright
assignment combination. They are all trying to be as complete as
p
On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myers wrote:
> "The devil is in the details."
CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print...
> But going from these reasonable objections to accusing the actions of the
> part of the community that you don't agree with of being dishonest, immoral
> and detrimental is too much
On 09/01/2010 10:14 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 19:07, Rob Myers wrote:
If you don't want the effects of a PD OSM for geodata, ODbL is a better way
of ensuring this than BY-SA
"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't"
"The devil is in the details."
At this stag
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
> Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL
> (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM
> Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more
> SotM conferences. All the time, collab
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:10 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith wrote:
> > John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is
> an
> > Apostle of the 'new license'.
>
> I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be
> content wi
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> On 30 August 2010 10:36, Chris Browet wrote:
> > As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
> > data without permissions, and it is thus not truly "open":
> > - with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:40:32AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:41:16AM +, Jane Smith wrote:
> > copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
> > Production.
> >
> > We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Rob Myers 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 think are) o
On 31 August 2010 12:25, Grant Slater wrote:
>
> Yes, this is the intent of the section 3 of the Contributor Terms.
> It allows a mechanism for the community to adopt a new license in the
> future. It is the main point of contension with some of the imported
> dataset.
>
Might be worth sharpening
10 matches
Mail list logo
