Now that the dust has (hopefully) settled a little on this thread...
Whilst it's not actually in my job description to try and move forward on
how NearMap deals with the proposed OSM licence change, I'm going to try
anyway. Having trawled back through endless discussions, what I'm after are
resp
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>
>> So again, either CC-BY-SA 'protects' the data or it does not.
>>
>
> Or it "protects" the data sometimes, in some jurisdictions, possibly,
> depending on who you ask.
>
On second though, put
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> So again, either CC-BY-SA 'protects' the data or it does not.
>
Or it "protects" the data sometimes, in some jurisdictions, possibly,
depending on who you ask.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.o
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason schrieb:
Is there any official archive of all contributors agreements yet used
in OSM?
This, I think:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Terms&action=history
I meant ALL of them including this one the very first mapper
no. 1 has signed ..
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 18:32, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
> John Smith schrieb:
>>
>> 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 r
John Smith schrieb:
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 wor
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 Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Ulf Möller wrote:
> Am 17.07.2010 05:07, schrieb Michael Barabanov:
>
> 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.
>>
>
> The OSMF has a contractual relati
Am 17.07.2010 05:07, schrieb Michael Barabanov:
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.
The OSMF has a contractual relationship with its contributors. So if
there is no copyright protect
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, 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 le
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:41 PM, SteveC wrote:
> Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything
> I said and twisted it 180 degrees.
>
So, really, you agree with me, but I've just twisted it so that it appears
that you disagree with me? ;)
If I've mis-interpreted wh
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, SteveC wrote:
> There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet
> you pick bitter dissent.
>
What is it that you suggest? How can we get this whole license change
question over with? One way or another, it'd be really great if we cou
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
Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything I
said and twisted it 180 degrees. Gun to your head? I'm not even on the LWG.
Quashing discussion? All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG.
There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, 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?)
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, 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
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote:
> > In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of
> ignorance. Shit happens.
> >
> > Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses
> the spirit of the license
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, you wrote:
> No... it slithered out from the 7th Circle of Hell, spawned by the Evil LWG
> and her commander Mike of Norse.
>
> The Brethren Thirteen (the Evil Number) hath rendered blah blah blah...
>
> Seriously - where do you guys get off with these dark mutterings? The CT
On 19/07/10 03:07, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
SteveC-2 wrote:
And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on
such counts.
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
On 19 July 2010 13:48, Michael Barabanov wrote:
> Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but
> specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this
> particular issue? ODBL looks like SA in spirit. Further changing of
> licenses could be a separate discus
Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but
specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this
particular issue? ODBL looks like SA in spirit. Further changing of
licenses could be a separate discussion, when/if there's a new need.
Michael.
On Sun, Jul
On 19 July 2010 10:18, John Smith wrote:
> 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 O
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 Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 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 v
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
SteveC-2 wrote:
>
> And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on
> such counts.
>
> Steve
>
> stevecoast.com
>
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.
--
View th
On 19 July 2010 01:04, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> [ snip ]
>> Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out
>> that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just
>> opposing to the text of the CT. The CT
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
[ snip ]
> Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out
> that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just
> opposing to the text of the CT. The CT is also what nearmap is not
> accepting and what I
On Jul 19, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC wrote:
> > The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
> > basically lick t
On Jul 18, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, 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?
> We started imports a while ago, with the first
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, 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
Hi,
On 18 July 2010 19:54, SteveC wrote:
> And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that
> we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't
> do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so
> you're saying no
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:18 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 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
On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, 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 ea
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, 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?
We started imports a while ago, with the first I recall in 2007.
In 2007 I was not aware of an at
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...
>
2010/7/18 John Smith :
> 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.osmfoun
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 Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC wrote:
> > It's not a question of OSMF member support, I am talking about how
> > share-alike encourages business to share data with OSM.
>
> Then why mention produced work, since ODBL and cc-by-sa both encourage
>
On 18/07/10 21:22, John Smith wrote:
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 encourage companies to giv
>> I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs,
>> specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL
>> is.
>
> Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical
> situation that you have created.
>
I know you like to have personal flame war,
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 encourage companies to give back.
>>>
>>
>> Judging by a same str
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 encourage companies to give back.
Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending
to pro
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, 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 be
On 18 July 2010 12:31, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK the majority of data currently in OSM in Poland comes from that
>> other project, which still has lots more contributors than OSM here.
>
> Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask them for thei
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 Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:20 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 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 a
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
> a change to CC0 after the CT
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 Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 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 f
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 18/07/10 19:11, 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 then the proj
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 Jul 18, 2010, at 8:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 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.
>
>
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 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 fro
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
Hi,
I am a complete outsider regarding the licensing debate (and, to be
honest, to the whole OSM project... I barely started mapping a few
hiking trails).
That being said, here is the main thing I wonder about :
**Is the license change a real choice or a kind of legal obligation ?**
The reason
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:48 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 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 th
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:46 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 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 organi
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 Jul 18, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 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 CT
On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote:
> In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance.
> Shit happens.
>
> Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses the
> spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that?
People abuse it all the
On 17 July 2010 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> It should really be "Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the
> whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual
> contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but
> disregarding individuals who might be ag
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Chris Fleming wrote:
> On 17/07/10 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Michael Barabanov wrote:
>>>
>>> A poll could be something like: "Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF
>>> relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss".
>>
>> It should
On 17/07/10 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
A poll could be something like: "Would you find a it acceptable if
OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss".
It should really be "Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed
the whole dataset to
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.
___
John,
John Smith wrote:
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 effected the most to be doing all the leg work
to clean up the mess this license change over is causing or goin
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 Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:54:36PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> 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.
This
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 Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:19:53PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> 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 the
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 and regional areas is considera
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
Hi,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
AFAIK the majority of data currently in OSM in Poland comes from that
other project, which still has lots more contributors than OSM here.
Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask them for
their agreement?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ##
Hi,
On 17 July 2010 10:34, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Michael Barabanov wrote:
>>
>> 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against
>> ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from
>> the database.
>
>> 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
A poll could be something like: "Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF
relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss".
It should really be "Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the
whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from indi
A poll could be something like: "Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF
relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss". If nothing
else, that'd give an idea of how people feel about licensing vs data itself.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> 80n wrote
> 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against
>> ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from
>> the database.
>>
>
> 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are
>> deleted, people who are against ODBL st
Hi,
80n wrote:
We have never said to any contributors that their data is protected.
The only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to
license their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload
it.
If we have really never said nor implied that our contribut
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> John Smith wrote:
>
>> 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 t
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a
> decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is
> sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected.
> In other words, we w
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we
> essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected.
>
And what does it mean for the data to be "protected"?
It doesn't mean that people who *u
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 Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> John Smith wrote:
>
>> 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 t
Michael Barabanov schrieb:
> 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 change.
>
> Where's the is
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are
against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No
data loss from the database.
2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL
are deleted, people who ar
Thanks for the explanation. BTW, I think "pirate" is quite an overstatement
in this context. The proposed license is still a free/open license. Plus I
kind of suspect that most contributors care about potential data loss more
than CC license vs ODBL license, but I may be wrong. Still, let me adv
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
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
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
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 change.
Where's the issue?
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM, N
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
>
> But I don't will accept any data loss because only of legal reasons.
> Wikipedia and other projects changed licence without any loss of data.
>
Unfortunately Wikipedia took advantage of a loophole: contributors agreed to
the current GFDL or any later version, and they
Roland Olbricht schrieb:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the
legalese.
I would say that the new licence might be good, beter than the old one
BUT:
I also interested MUCH MORE
> I've split this from the original thread before it derails the one it
> was in any further, and cc'd legal-talk.
[...]
> What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive?
Just some bullet points at first, explanation follows:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing t
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
