On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2010 19:42, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the criteria in the EU? Do you know?
own intellectual creation
Article 3(1) of 96/9/EC:
1. In accordance with this Directive, databases which,
On 6 August 2010 19:42, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the criteria in the EU? Do you know?
own intellectual creation
Article 3(1) of 96/9/EC:
1. In accordance with this Directive, databases which, by reason of
the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the
Anthony o...@... writes:
There isn't a switch to ODbL. Just a (not very practical IMHO) plan to do so
at some point in the future,
Did you see my addendum? I don't trust the OSMF to properly remove
all of my work and derivatives of my work if/when they stop releasing
those derivatives under
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I don't trust the OSMF to properly remove
all of my work and derivatives of my work if/when they stop releasing
those derivatives under CC-BY-SA.
In December last year we had a guy also called Anthony on legal-talk who
said:
I live in the United States, where
that. :)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-decision-removing-data-tp5370516p5388808.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I don't trust the OSMF to properly remove
all of my work and derivatives of my work if/when they stop releasing
those derivatives under CC-BY-SA.
In December last year we had a guy also called
On 9 August 2010 23:11, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Alternatively, you could perhaps contribute to CommonMap (commonmap.info)
who are not a fork of OSM but acknowledge OSM as inspiration and are not
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Ed Avis wrote:
Anthony writes:
I'm currently working on a fork.
I'm still hopeful that people will find some compromise, and it won't be
needed. (Myself I would be quite happy if the project chose a dual
Heiko,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain
then good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract.
Did I miss something? On
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_0cc77vdd9
I only read this three possibilities:
[Agree
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain then
good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract.
No, I'll simply take his data and upload it under an account which I sign up
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Aug 9, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Anthony wrote:
If that was you back then: Why should you request OSMF to properly
remove
all of your work when at the same time you have no problem with OSM
using
my contributions in any way
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Imports are bad enough in the effect they have on the surveying
community.
You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian
coastline.
However
If there is
2010/8/10 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
The Ideal would be PD/CC0, because that wouldn't limit us in so many ways.
That's not true, it wouldn't limit what terms could be placed on end
users of the data, it would increasingly limit what contributors can
do.
2010/8/9 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Yes, easier said than done. But in my opinion a free and open
geodatabase of the world is only free if it doesn't impose limits on
it's uses.
If you use OSM in a work, say that you used OSM, and don't sue anybody
for copying that work.
Is that
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain
then good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract.
Did I miss something? On
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_0cc77vdd9
I only read this three possibilities:
[Agree button]
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
Thus, it slows everything down.
Oh and this and other threads going on right now are good examples. It's
explicitly slowing down and complicating the process, which is probably
the aim of several of the people here.
I don't think it slows everything down,
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I don't think it slows everything down, just some things.
My explicit aim is not to slow down nor complicate the process of licence
change, but to pull it to a halt.
It's good that you've aired that explicitly because it explains
On 10 August 2010 11:38, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, the ODbL ship has sailed. There's no putting the
toothpaste back in the tube, and there's no crying over spilled milk.
There's not even any more time for metaphors, that fat lady has sung.
If things are so fixed
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
All of these are valid options. They also all have the attribute of
being active- that is focusing on what's to come, instead of focusing
on trying to change the past.
Thankyou Serge for your opinions.
I don't think any ship has sailed, or any
SteveC writes:
As in, why is the PD camp so loud here?
First and foremost, because we believe that all the licensing
kerfluffle will frighten people away from using the map. Because we
all want a map that will actually be USED by the most people possible.
Because we aren't afraid of forks
On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and
CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to
get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the
people who think a reciprocal
Hi,
On 08/08/2010 09:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelsonnel...@crynwr.com wrote:
copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and
CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to
get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least
Liz,
On 08/08/2010 10:21 AM, Liz wrote:
You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian
coastline.
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.
Honestly, I will.
Bye
On 8 August 2010 18:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again
says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.
I'm starting to think 80n was right, if you were really serious about
wanting a PD fork
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.
The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as accurate as the
imported one.
On 8 August 2010 18:43, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.
The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as
On 08/07/2010 03:35 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't really see how there's an argument. If photoshop offers a
plugin that lets you draw a line with a certain thickness, a certain
color, and a label on it, and you use that photoshop plugin to make a
map, you've got a copyrighted work, and that
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
Not arguing against people having a choice, but I do think that, whether
or not the license change happens, people should be able to get all of
the old data, including history, under the terms of the existing
CC-by-sa license.
It has been officially said by the LWG (and
80n 80n...@... writes:
There are many things that meet the almost trivial threshold that legally
constitutes creativity. Road classification, land use, abstraction,
generalization, selectivity, arbitrary tagging, arrangement, smoothness, routes,
desire paths, boundary approximation, building
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi
wrote:
80n 80n...@... writes:
There are many things that meet the almost trivial threshold that legally
constitutes creativity. Road classification, land use, abstraction,
generalization, selectivity, arbitrary
80n 80n...@... writes:
So, without your best endeavours, would you agree that these contributors
would naturally introduce some creativeness? If you have to expend effort to
remove creativity then you have made a pretty good case for the existence of
creativity. Thank you for your testimony.
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, 80n quoted:
I have been leading a team of digitizers tracing features from aerial
images. I
was doing everything I could to minimize the creative or artistic part of
their
work. Actually, a quite heavy system of internal and external quality
control
was there just
Heiko,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing
data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all
have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data?
Because. as I explained to you yesterday, CC-BY-SA does not allow
redistribution of data
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Heiko,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing
data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all
have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data?
Because. as I explained to you yesterday, CC-BY-SA does not allow
On 5 August 2010 18:04, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I don't want youre private guesses.
I want to have official facts.
Unless someone sues another in court over this issues, you are only
going to get guesses.
What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too?
The
On 08/05/2010 12:11 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 21:02, Grant Slateropenstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 4 August 2010 22:25, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than ODbL, as
it has been well checked and has government use.
On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're
not meeting the deadline.
On Aug 5, 2010, at 6:43 AM, SteveC wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then
and creep.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-decision-removing-data-tp5370516p5376400.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
On 5 August 2010 22:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The conversation we had recently on this list indicated that three years
from after the next Australian election would be the minimum timescale.
That's assuming they actually have a desire or reason to change...
Otherwise it could take
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Two recent, very high-profile judgements in Australia both repudiate the
notion that copyright can protect collections of unoriginal facts. These are
IceTV vs Nine Network (last year) and Telstra vs Phone Directories
On 5 August 2010 23:12, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I am, however, sure that any legal case involving infringement of OSM data
in Australia would be judged following IceTV vs Nine Network and Telstra vs
Phone Directories, rather than following any licence which the legislature
On 5 August 2010 22:43, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a
significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward.
I'm not the one that came up with ambiguous wording for the new CTs
that makes a lot of the
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't see that's different from any other drawing,
in digital form.
It depends how creative/original it is.
No it doesn't. It depends whether or not it crosses the threshold of
On 08/05/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
The idea
that copyright does not cover maps is very strange when you consider
that.
Nobody has said that it doesn't.
The point is that Geodata is not a visual work of cartography.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk
On 08/05/2010 03:07 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't see that's different from any other drawing,
in digital form.
It depends how creative/original it is.
No it doesn't. It depends whether
On 08/05/2010 03:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
Still waiting for that definition of geodata.
It's a contraction of geographical data.
Just because the map is
in digitized vector format doesn't mean it's not a digital version of
a visual work of cartography.
The fixed form is different. The fact
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 03:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
Still waiting for that definition of geodata.
It's a contraction of geographical data.
I didn't ask for an expanded form, I asked for a definition. If you'd
like to be tricky, you can
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2010 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Call it mapping for the renderer if you want. Call it a violation
of the rules of OSM. But that's a copyrightable work.
So would any use of the smoothness
On 08/05/2010 03:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
I say such a definition is not possible to create.
Then why are you asking for one?
It is trivial to define geodata as geographical data in database form. A
rendered map isn't geodata because it isn't in database form.
The fixed form is different.
On 08/05/2010 04:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
Bottom line is it doesn't matter. Even if I broke the rules of OSM
while creating it, I'm still entitled to the copyright on my work.
If you are entitled to copyright. The point of the breaking the rules
is that the creativity/originality that breaking
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 05:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
And OSM is more than just geographical data. A way isn't geographical
data.
A way is geographical data. Or possibly geographical metadata. ;-)
I don't think so. Ways contain
The test for copyrightability is some amount of creativity. Case law
suggests that this can be very minimal. Rather than looking for what is
factual and thus not copyrightable, let's look for what is.
There are many things that meet the almost trivial threshold that legally
constitutes
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data, but they're more
than *just* geographical data.
I don't know what else
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jamie Smith jamiekrsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data,
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
They're vector graphics.
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get
rendered.
Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered?
Rendered != rasterised. The vector data has no natural visual form.
They're vector graphics.
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered.
Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered?
Rendered != rasterised. The vector data has no natural visual form.
This is supposed to be a mailing list for legal discussions
+1
On Aug 5, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
They're vector graphics.
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get
rendered.
Is an svg file not graphics until it gets rendered?
Rendered != rasterised. The vector data has no natural visual form.
This is
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:42:35PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only,
have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you
suggest that they should not have a choice?
Not arguing against people having a choice, but I
On 6 August 2010 06:48, Jamie Smith jamiekrsm...@gmail.com wrote:
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered.
So a SVG file isn't copyrightable, until it is rendered?
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 08/05/2010 09:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything
but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who
think even if we loose a most of data people will just put new freer
data back in and we'll be able to then license
On 5 August 2010 14:19, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What makes you think that contractual element will offer any
protection in Australia? Has an Australian court case upheld the
enforcement of contractual restriction on people who didn't even know
the contract existed?
And who told you
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:23 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 August 2010 22:44, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Oh and BTW this exact dragging on is why I suggested we bound the problem by
signing up new users - so the problem doesn't grow every day with more and
more
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
trollHum, I think that quite a few things on Wikipedia can be considered
creative in the first place allowing for copyrights to kick in. /troll
Hum, in Wikipedia, it is not the facts that is protected but the
this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-decision-removing-data-tp5370516p5376495.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com
wrote:
trollHum, I think that quite a few things on Wikipedia can be considered
creative in the first place allowing for copyrights to kick in. /troll
Hum, in
On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:13 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:25 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything
but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who
think even if we loose a most of
On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:22 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 22:43, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a
significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward.
I'm not the one that came up with ambiguous
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts?
I did, last time I did some mapping. I faithfully recorded where the paths,
gates and stiles were, rather than pulling some fictitious
On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:23 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 22:44, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Oh and BTW this exact dragging on is why I suggested we bound the problem by
signing up new users - so the problem doesn't grow every day with more and
more people.
But that has it's
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I've pretty much stopped uploading my maps to OSM precisely because of
this switch to ODbL.
Basically, I don't trust you to delete all of my work and all of the
derivatives based on it, when you switch.
On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Anthony wrote:
And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts?
I did, last time I did some mapping. I faithfully recorded where the paths,
gates and stiles were, rather than pulling some fictitious locations out of
my
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Which is to say, sure, it *contains* a collection of unoriginal facts, but it
expresses
those facts in a unique way.
Hey Google, you can have our unoriginal facts but please don't copy the
Osmarender map style, or the way we write our XML. Thanks.
Bye
Frederik
On 05/08/10 14:37, Anthony wrote:
By the way, if you know the history of copyright, you'll know that
maps were one of the first two types of works which were protected.
When copyright was invented, it protected books and maps. The idea
that copyright does not cover maps is very strange when
On 5 August 2010 23:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hey Google, you can have our unoriginal facts but please don't copy the
Osmarender map style, or the way we write our XML. Thanks.
Mapping isn't about recording pure fact, otherwise we'd simply convert
GPX data to map data
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 05/08/10 14:37, Anthony wrote:
By the way, if you know the history of copyright, you'll know that
maps were one of the first two types of works which were protected.
When copyright was invented, it protected books and maps.
On 05/08/10 14:50, Anthony chuntered on:
Still waiting for that definition of geodata.
It's a contraction of geographical data.
I didn't ask for an expanded form, I asked for a definition.
You are aware that there are aspects to life that aren't connected to
copyright? Like the definition
On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data, but they're more
than *just* geographical data.
I don't know what else they are.
The fact that the form is fixed on the hard drive is less important than
that it's fixed as a database or as an image
On 5 August 2010 22:26, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Francis
Indeed. Let's start getting specific. The threshold in the US is very low
- which incidentally is where this you can't copyright facts stuff
originated.
I may have missed that part of the discussion. If you mean that the US
is
Richard Weait schrieb:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Hello
I searched without success in the Wiki
who official decided, when and *WHY* they decided, that data of
contributors, who not (can) accept the ODbl, has to be removed.
In
Hello
First thanks a lot for some unknown (and known) interesting pages.
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
That again referenced the implementation plan at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan
Which, under the What do we do with people who have said no or not
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
3. Each element is examined and only those with an unbroken history chain
from version 1 to the most recent ODbL'ed version are marked as OK.
Does anyone know whether the code exists to do this yet?
How are way
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
I'm still searching the former decision (of LWG or any other)
that the removal of data is mandatory and WHY it is on which legal
base of copyright, CC or anything other.
I don't think that there is any decision necessary. CC-BY-SA says data
must
On 04/08/10 12:06, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I also still searching archived versions of old (pre double
licensing) versions of contribution terms. You answered it in
talk-de citing a small sentence but with a preceding I guess ...
An archive without guess would be fine ;-)
You should be able to
Hi,
80n wrote:
Does anyone know whether the code exists to do this yet?
I doubt it.
How are way splits handled (only one half of the way will have a full
history)?
I think they can be auto-detected (i.e. where in one changeset, one way
suddenly loses some nodes and another springs up
On 4 August 2010 21:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient
to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip
through, then fix them in case of complaints.
Which goes against the usual OSM
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:20 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.orgwrote:
3. Each element is examined and only those with an unbroken history
chain from version 1 to the most recent ODbL'ed version are marked as OK.
Does anyone
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient
to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip
through, then fix them in case of complaints.
Which goes against the usual OSM policy of rejecting it if unsure,
rather
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is
sufficient
to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things
slip
through, then fix them in case of
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
Does anyone know whether the code exists to do this yet?
I doubt it.
How are way splits handled (only one half of the way will have a full
history)?
I think they can be auto-detected (i.e.
On 4 August 2010 14:00, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole relicensing effort would be a bit of a non-starter if this
deletion process cannot be done.
During late 2008 and early 2009 a user inappropriately imported (and
amend existing OSM data) into OSM for Lithuania from what was strongly
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If there is anything under development it would be good if we could see it.
It is unlikely to be a trivial piece of code and I'd be very surprised if it
can be developed by September 1st if it hasn't already been started.
You've
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... ]
September 1st represents
a reasonable timeframe, based on the currently published implementation plan
Dear 80n,
Absolutely not.
From the implementation plan. Phase 2 scheduled as 5 or 10 weeks.
Phase 3 as 8 weeks. Plus
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
How do you find your fictional September first deadline reasonable?
I consider it a political deadline.
Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you consider
it, of course you think it is quite short.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... ]
September 1st represents
a reasonable timeframe, based on the currently published implementation
plan
Dear 80n,
Absolutely not.
From the
Liz,
Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you consider
it, of course you think it is quite short.
80n first mentioned this deadline on 14th July, i.e. at the time that
was six weeks.
It was unclear to me what exactly the deadline was about; he wrote if
there
May I set a reminder to a mail of mine?
Everyone discusses consequenzes of the decision of removing
data from non-accepting people, but it seems, that they all
have forgotten, WHY they have decided to remove data?
For such an inportant thing like removing data from OSM project
while licence
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're not
meeting the deadline.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Aug 4, 2010, at 3:35 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Frederik Ramm
On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're not
meeting the deadline.
Regardless I've communicated with some older contributors
Hi,
Heiko Jacobs wrote:
I searched without success in the Wiki
who official decided, when and *WHY* they decided, that data of
contributors, who not (can) accept the ODbl, has to be removed.
The formal decision for OSMF to go on with the ODbL relicensing process
was the result of a vote
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
