On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:29:51PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give
it to anyone under any terms. Why would you
On 16 June 2011 15:34, Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:
Could we then export change 2 to a PD database first and
import that into ODbL OSM?
Wouldn't it be much simpler for those users to simply accept CT? PD is
a superset of CT and ODbL after all...
Dermot
--
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
Regards,
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:derm...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:59 PM
Aan: Floris Looijesteijn
CC: OpenStreetMap Talk
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0
On 16 June 2011 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM
mappers. Floris' comments talk about saving as much data as
possible, by context, saving it for
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM
mappers. Floris' comments talk about saving as much data as
possible, by context, saving it for OSM. The easiest way to do this
is as I have
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give it to
anyone under any terms. Why would you not contribute under the new CTs if
you're willing to accept any
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:27, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM
mappers. Floris' comments talk about saving as much data as
possible, by context, saving it
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
If we convince them to release under PD, then we can take their work and then
license it as ODbL, so not wanting their work licensed ODbL precludes
releasing under PD.
But then it would under the account / liability of
On 16 June 2011 16:55, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
If we convince them to release under PD, then we can take their work and then
license it as ODbL, so not wanting their work licensed ODbL precludes
releasing under PD.
Notwithstanding the fact that much of the reasoning here
Hi,
Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
There are at least a few users who have disagreed to ODbL
but are ok with PD (or CC0).
From phase 4 on we only allow people to edit if they have agreed to the
CT, so we'd definitely have to disable the account of that user. But
since his data is available
Thomas Davie schrieb:
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give it to
anyone under any terms. Why would you not contribute under the new CTs if
you're
On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to
harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the
outcome, though.
The harm he's doing is to the other mappers in the areas he has mapped.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:49:36PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
additionally clicked the PD checkbox. It would be possible, from a
database point of view, to set the PD option without setting the
agreed to CT field. We should do this manually for those users who
haven't agreed. In all other
I'm staying out of the discussion, just please remember the PD-checkbox
has no legal meaning, as documented here:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F
Any retroactive change just isn't going to work.
Simon
Am 16.06.2011 22:08, schrieb
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com writes:
On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to
harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the
outcome, though.
The harm he's doing is to the
Dermot McNally schrieb:
On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to
harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the
outcome, though.
The harm he's doing is to the other mappers in
Dermot McNally writes:
Wouldn't it be much simpler for those users to simply accept CT?
No. Some guy is going around claiming that everyone who accepts the CT
supports the licensng change and supports the CT and ODbL as the
preferred licenses. Some people who do not are not comfortable signing
17 matches
Mail list logo
