Andy Mabbett wrote:
> in different parts of the world
IIRC OSM stores spatial information. I might be wrong.
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
joost schooupe wrote:
> It doesn't help that it was worded as "people are
> saying", but then the last part of the sentence seems more
> like their own opinion.
Worth noting that WeeklyOSM is produced alongside and seeded by the German
Wochennotiz. I don't sprechen sufficient Deutsch to be
Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Look at Wikipedia, or any large social organization for that matter. At
> the village/startup level, you have very few codified rules, but as the
> group grows to a city/corporation size, it becomes more and more
> bureaucratic. We may not like it, but clear rules help
Sheesh, you lot are hilarious sometimes.
Publications have an inviolable duty to be impartial? That’s great. Very
interesting attitude in 2017. Tell me when you’ve found one such.
WeeklyOSM writes what WeeklyOSM wants. If you don’t like it, contribute or
start your own. It saddens me that the
Carlos Cámara wrote:
> Willing to read your points of view on that matter.
There is a whole lot I could say on this (writing "Eurocentric" in a
discussion about casinos seems really weird, and I'm not sure Native
Americans would thank you for it) but ultimately it's a little academic at
the
I agree absolutely. Time to ban verdy_p for continually disruptive behaviour
and an unwillingness to work with the community.
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
___
talk mailing list
Blake Girardot wrote:
> Also: No one is getting paid for anything related to this at this
> point. I personally would like to see Google donate to the OSMF
> and let the OSMF grant it out to help OSM core and eco system
> tools implement OLC native in code as it should be.
That's done. Tom has
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Have you ever dealt with OSM data from a software development
> standpoint?
>
> There is no such thing as "database quality". Its a big spaghetti
> mess and data consumers take whats documented and ignore
> misspellings. Users have to fix it with discipline noticing the
Greg Morgan wrote:
> Let's compare Germany[8], the state of Montana[9] and the
> United States[10]. We see that the size of Montana matches the
> size of Germany. Yet, we see the population density is roughly
> 82 million people in Germany to 1 million people in Montana.
I see a lot of varied
Paul Norman wrote:
> If there's agreement that there is a problem here, I could look
> at preparing a mechanical edit or MapRoulette challenge to add
> name:* tags, e.g. adding name:en to objects in the US with
> other name:* tags, and adding name:zh in China. As an
> estimate, this would be
Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Ad absurdum argument: can you invent your own street name or even
> placename and expect post, police, ambulance, firefighters, taxi to
> arrive (on time or at all)?
Sure, in the UK, you could do that and I know people who have done so. If
you invent a street name here
Hi all,
I've just added coverage of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe to the
OSM-powered bike routing at https://cycle.travel/map .
New countries are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, (North)
Macedonia,
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Now while everybody is free to use any tag she likes, I would not
> expect the OpenStreetMap-Foundation standard editor to
> introduce new tags through presets.
It's been happening since Potlatch 1 came online in 2007, so you should have
had a few years to get used
Hi all,
In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers
have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through
'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:
https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png
Mikel Maron wrote:
> We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation.
> We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation
> can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion
> will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> How did you come to this conclusion? I counted 3 people not so
> interested in attribution or OK with current state of things and
> 16 agreeing either explicitly or implicitly with Richard's assessment
> that there is a problem.
I think WeeklyOSM were being very
Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.
Please stop trolling.
Richard
--
Sent from:
Wiklund Johan wrote:
> Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
> built
> routing engines.
Are there actually any such engines, or is this a post-facto justification?
OSRM has routed over platforms since 8 September 2013. Valhalla does - it's
multimodal and you
Kathleen Lu wrote:
> "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean?
> Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others
> in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources,
> after
> a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the
Roland Olbricht wrote:
> > Changing to a github-like system of version management
> I thought of Git, not Github.
Again, there's no suggestion of "changing to"; it would be additional.
As Christoph says, the challenge would be "finding, motivating, selecting
and retaining qualified people to
Roland Olbricht wrote:
> Imperfect Flow of Information
>
> Although many parts of the OpenStreetMap project are well
> translated, the tagging documentation has substantial deficiencies.
Yep. Documentation is the biggest problem with tagging.
I don't actually think it's the wiki per se that's
Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Changing to a github-like system of version management would
> require some people to serve as "maintainers" or "moderators"
> of the new, curated list of Map Features / Tags, wouldn't it? While
> this could be an improvement in the quality and consistency of
> how
SimonPoole wrote:
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we
> would appreciate feedback on.
This is really good, and very much in accordance with both the text of the
ODbL and the long-standing precedents set by the osm.org/copyright page.
Thank you.
Two small wording
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution
> (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service
> or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more
> prominently than OSM.
That is not something that the ODbL
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
If you look at Apple Maps, and for example zoomed into some place in Denmark,
there is an i-button which brings you to an overlay which has a TomTom logo and
a link „and others“
while in Denmark the data is from OpenStreetMap. IMHO this second rate
attribution
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Just for understanding what second rate attribution is: For example
> the map on the bottom right of:
> https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran
> printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution)
EuroVelo routes are not in a great state in OSM. Many of them appear to have
been armchaired years ago when routes were "in development", and not updated
since to reflect the correct route.
A handful of examples:
[France]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=12!49.2876!2.655
EV3 should
Kathleen Lu wrote:
> I would not say this is true. Google maps has routing for walking,
> cycling, and public transit, and their public transit information is
> probably more complete than OSM's.
It is, but on the other hand Google's walking and cycling routing is _much_
worse.
Richard
--
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Could we get some lane editing/rendering in these editors
> to cut down on this kind of unintentionally erratic mapping?
Sure, you're welcome to open a friendly issue at
https://github.com/systemed/potlatch2/issues listing the base case for what
you think is required.
> >
Rory McCann wrote:
> The existence of an OSM cycling logo doesn't mean all
> OSMers have to be cycling activists!
Wait, what?
cheers
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
___
talk mailing list
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "©
> OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation
> (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be
> necessary to credit the contributors.
When I wrote the /copyright page all
Kathleen Lu wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
> does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
> to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
> acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data
Sören Reinecke wrote:
> So far as I understood Adobe dropped Linux support for its
> AIR plattform. If that is right, then I am in doubt that
> supporting the development of Potlatch 2 is not that in
> a sustainable manner.
AIR is not maintained by Adobe, but by Harman, a Samsung subsidiary. AIR
Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think using any funds at all to
> continue support for a tool that 1% of editors use would be wasteful.
> Flash is, for all intents and purposes, a dead technology. This
> money is better spent on other uses.
The entire point is to move
mmd wrote:
> I'm wondering if some of the changes that are now needed for AIR
> would make it more difficult to switch to Ruffle later on.
The short answer is (based on the POC work I've done so far) no. :)
The slightly longer answer is that I hope, as part of this project,
to make a number of
Blake Girardot wrote:
> I will just point out a common pattern:
Céline posted an eloquent opening statement that talks about "this dominant
profile" and the thread has, true to form, largely descended into the same
dominant profile arguing and "just pointing out" things.
It might therefore be
Michal Migurski wrote:
> FB’s attribution approach in keeping with best practices
> seen from other commercial users of display maps.
In the spirit of Twitter footnoting one of Donald Trump's "I won the election"
tweets, this is your respectful reminder that Google, Bing, Here, Tencent,
Jas Ranasinghe wrote:
> Is anyone able to provide any information about the missing Public
> Rights of Way overlay? It is still currently in the overlay list, but the
> Rights of Way do not show up on the map.
I'm guessing this refers to one of the tile layers I host at osm.cycle.travel.
Courtney wrote:
> Or is it going to keep doing the same old flame wars?
To be honest, the mailing lists have been on the way out for a long time now,
and talk@ is no exception. Some once busy lists are now basically dead (dev@,
legal-talk@, talk-de@). Others are noticeably quieter (talk@,
Hello all,
I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for
mapping simple public transport objects.
Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will
also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors
(Potlatch, JOSM,
André Joost wrote:
No need to panic, you don't *have* to use relations.
I'm not panicking as a mapper. As a mapper I have exactly 0.0 interest
in mapping bus stops.
I'm anxious as an editor (co-)author.
If such relations become widespread, they will (without explicit
support) appear in
Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote:
IMHO not related to the proposal:
- potlatch can not handle the proposal/nested relations correctly:
The latest version of Potlatch (Potlatch 2) handles nested relations
excellently. About 10 seconds' research would have told you that.
Richard
rob wrote:
Quoting Tom Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On the face it claims to work in those jurisdictions via contract
law, but what is not clear to me is how you require people to enter
into that contract.
Yes this is my concern about the ODL. The GPL for example is a license
not a contract
Hi again,
Rob and Frederik - I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that
you're never going to convince each other. ;)
A note on consultation and community might be helpful.
As the Foundation we are, of course, keeping track of the different
strands of opinion within the community
(follow-ups to legal-talk, please)
Peter Miller wrote:
There are clearly uncertainties and complications with the current licence,
however it does allow for the license to be upgraded without going back to
original contributors for permission.
In OSM's case that's unlikely to be true.
Martijn van Exel wrote:
We're considering the agreement between NLNet and OpenStreetMap-NL for
a €15k grant for software development.
It states that 'This software platform will be built in open source
under GPLv3 license'. It is pointed out that that may be too
restrictive, as projects
Frederik Ramm wrote:
To me at least, it seems obvious what Rob says. If you have something
that is not copyrighted, and you give it someone [A] under a contract,
and that person breaches te contract and publishes the data, then
whatever you gave him is up for grabs by anyone [B] as they're
Rob Myers wrote:
John Wilbanks wrote:
ps - Those of you interested in copyleft and freedom might want to
interview Stallman on this issue as well.
I tend not to agree with him on non-software issues but I would be
very
interested to know what he thinks, particularly since he has just
Robin Paulson wrote:
On 18/03/2008, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robin Paulson wrote:
(c) Crown Copyright
w00t, Robin found his Shift key! ;)
thanks, incredibly constructive. haven't you got something better to do?
What, something better than having a sense of humour
Robin Paulson wrote:
i ignore people's suggestions when their first response is something
in that tone. maybe if you want your point to be taken seriously you
should make it in a serious way?
'k. Personally I find it more helpful to assess people's suggestions
according to the value of the
Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
I haven't been following recent OSM licence debates at all, but why
not also offer the choice of licensing contributions under the
PDDL[1] also? This does not prevent people from including such
contributions in an ODL-licensed dataset.
This would effectively
Charles Basenga Kiyanda wrote:
I'm also wondering. How can one legally agree to release a
contribution under a license which is unfinished? Or am I
misunderstanding the situation and the ODL is in fact done?
Technically speaking the user would be licensing their contributions
under the
Frederik Ramm wrote:
What's your opinion? And would it change should the proposed new
license
get adopted?
a. It's a bit of a moot point, because CC-BY-SA doesn't force you to
distribute; so if the company generates the invoice and sends it to
their customers, who don't distribute it
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
It means that CC isn't here to overcome local copyright law. So, if
your local
jurisdiction has a fair use right (e.g. US), you can apply it, no
matter the
CC license. The same applies for citation rights, private copy,
parody, etc
etc in other
Michael Collinson wrote:
Other than that, well, I think we both share the same opinion that
the current license is just unworkable full stop! :-)
There's probably not a lot of point making a big song and dance about
attribution at present. In a month or two's time, when we're ready to
vote
Tim Sheerman-Chase wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Out_of_copyright
Is that interpretation about the FIRST year of publication definitely
correct? Or should it be the year of last update? Has this been
discussed before?
The FIRST is pretty meaningless. The 1954 revision of a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:34:33 +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Viernes, 4 de Abril de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
There is no „minimal size of data” for the CC-BY-SA to apply.
Hence all
„viral SA” elements are triggered.
Yes, there
[moved to legal-talk]
Jeffrey Martin wrote:
First is that someone can include public domain material
in their own work and not tell the reader. The reader then does not
know
that they can copy or make derivative works from those public domain
portions
without permission.
Second,
Greg Mitchell wrote:
Apologies for the newbie question, but could anyone tell me (or indeed
point me at a relevant discussion thread in the archives) what the
restrictions are on the use of OpenStreetMap data?
In particular, can the data be used for commercial services or trials,
and
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think the biggest problem for commercial users is probably the fact
that they can't get legal info from us - if they ask can we do X
then our response will always be read the license and ask a lawyer.
I agree, that is very unsatifactory. It is
Peter Miller wrote:
I realise that the OSMF is taking external legal advice at the moment, but
progress seems very slow
Progress is not slow, it's just that it's not always possible to
publicly communicate it at every turn. If you find that not knowing
frustrates you, you could maybe
[cc:ed to legal-talk]
Andy Allan wrote:
That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and
haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they
explicitly say otherwise. Public Domain isn't viral for derived
works.
Probably the biggest thing I've learned
Steve Hill wrote:
Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen
anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database,
accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the
CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too.
They're not explicitly licensed
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
At least that was the idea when the ODbL and OFIL licenses came along. I'm
eager to review the modifications and changes done to those licenses.
...which I hope should be at SOTM at the very latest!
With particular relevance to this question, there is a new section
On 3 Oct 2008, at 16:38, Ed wrote:
Please remove me from this mailing list.
Please use the link at the bottom of every message, http://
lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk , to remove yourself.
Richard
___
legal-talk mailing list
Frederik Ramm wrote:
There is one other thing I would hope the new license addresses,
which is very unclear at the moment: When does something count as
published?
4.2 Notices. You must, if You publicly Use by any means and in any
form, this Database, any Derivative Database, or the Database
Frederik Ramm wrote:
By speaking of public on one hand and wholly internally on the
other, the license seems to omit those cases where (a) the use is
still
internal but involves work from someone else, like the print shop
or the
auditing example, and those where (b) the use is not
Mikel Maron wrote:
--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
format. I
Frederik Ramm wrote:
2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like within a reasonable
time frame to alleviate the problem for people who try to process
current data.
It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not
you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like
Dair Grant wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database
offered
under this Licence, including any additional Data, that make
up all the
differences between the Database and the Derivative Database.
Assuming I choose option (b
Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:
On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that
perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several
months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get the new
Joseph Gentle wrote:
The license is changing
frustration is waning
we can all see
what the new license will be
Some terms need explaining
There once was a lawyer from Texas
who tackled the issues that vex us
CC is contrived
when defining derived
So let's switch before arguing wrecks us
Am
I've reverted the Open Data License page on the wiki to something near
its original form, as the point of it (to provide a quick, one-stop
comparison between CC-BY-SA and the ODBL) was getting lost amid all
the 'brief' stuff.
Peter's brief initiative is now at
Frederik Ramm wrote:
If either the current license draft or the brief brief mean that in
the future, OSM data may only be offered after displaying a note to
the user and requesting him to click ok (or the equivalent in other
media), then this would be a significant drawback compared to
Frederik Ramm wrote:
So if we can't get rid of the click-through is not the question.
Replace it by if we cannot find a license that works without
clicktrough.
Well, there ain't none.
Sorry, I'm over-simplifying. But the question is really simple, it's
just the answer that's
Frederik Ramm wrote:
The more complex thing is that some jurisdictions make it really
difficult for you to give away your rights so generously.
Which is a splendid reason to use WTFPL, reproduced here in its
entirety:
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR
Joseph Gentle wrote:
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if
we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments.
Yeah you will - a single PD disclaimer of rights (PDDL, CC0,
Wikipedia-like, WTFPL, doesn't really matter), with an
attribution/disclaimer
Joseph Gentle wrote:
It seems to me like everyone wins.
+1 to that entire message.
cheers
Richard
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Rob Myers wrote:
Community projects should not serve as random acts of kindness or
distributed potlatch for corporations and local government. They
should serve the community.
I _do_ like the fact that people in OSM are starting to figure out why
Potlatch is called Potlatch.
bvh wrote:
If you think Apple wouldn't do that just look at webkit. I am quite
convinced that had that one been pd they would just have forked it and
never looked back...
Actually, WebKit - which is licensed LGPL and BSD, _not_ GPL - is a
good example of how liberal licences can work. See:
Peter Miller wrote:
Can I suggest that the 'Use Cases' page I created is used as a
place for all
Use Cases, including those being discussed by PD advocates? I am
suggesting
this because it will help keep a connection between the different
proposals.
If you add the Use Cases that
Johann H. Addicks wrote:
The copyright of the OSM-Logo itself is CC-sa-by?
Matt Amos drew the original one, cc:ed.
When I was on the OSM Foundation board last year there was some
discussion about trademarking it. I'm not sure where that is now
though - anyone from the board here?
cheers
80n wrote:
Richard
Logo: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-number?trademark=2500155
Name: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-number?trademark=2500154
Ah, good, thanks. I presume the application is on behalf of OSMF?
cheers
Richard___
legal-talk mailing list
Nic Roets wrote:
It has been said on this list that facts cannot be copyrighted.
And IMHO gps traces are facts. Does this mean we can use data
from any of the sites mention below ? Or are gps traces subject
to the same type of copyright as photos ?
In Britain and several other
Mikel Maron wrote:
So what's next? A technical team meeting will be held this week
to discuss the technical implementation. Next week we will hold
another licensing working group meeting, where we'll produced
the final integrated plan of license and technical process, and
timeline for
sward wrote:
By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts
for review, OSMF have forced the process to involve rounds
of consultation.
It's not OSMF's licence. It is a third-party licence which OSM is
considering and on which OSMF has sponsored some work. To my knowledge
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is
the well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible
with sources (and consumers) using the same license. So,
say I've uploaded a lot of information based on wikipedia,
conscious that I'm
sward wrote:
Communications with Jordan have apparently broken down.
Mikel's e-mail of 15th Jan, which post-dates the minutes you're quoting
from, said Jordan had been involved in a meeting with them the previous day,
and was currently in discussion with Wilson Semprini (/monty_python).
cheers
Peter Miller wrote:
If that is news to you as well Richard, then I am really confused.
I think that must have been a slip of the tongue on his part - I stepped
down from OSMF last summer and have had no official involvement with this
process since then.
Certainly when I was involved, the
80n wrote:
It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA
license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.
It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that,
in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just
80n wrote:
It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one.
As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be
compatible.
In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet
the relicensing happened. The point is that compatible
OJ W wrote:
Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful,
anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if
we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time
for april fools
Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the
OJ W wrote:
The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions
because you mapped them as PD.
I did? I've done comparatively little canal line mapping in OSM, let alone
bridges and locks.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
80n wrote:
I support Frederik's view that the community is the most valuable aspect
of OSM.
Um, I'm not arguing against that. All I'm disputing is this silly little
notion that maps automatically lose all value after a year or two.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
there are three things that spring to mind
I meant four (no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition, etc.).
4. OSMF can request additional permissions over and above ODbL from its
users, as part of the new user sign-up, or the licence change agreement.
(Effectively dual
Hello all,
This isn't (shock horror) specifically a licence-change post.
If Fred has a program running on his computer that downloads OSM
data, then combines it with some proprietary, non-CC-BY-SA stuff,
that's perfectly ok as long as Fred doesn't then distribute the
result. In fact, Fred
Peter Miller wrote:
The voice call idea might work, however I would ask the working
group to provide any answers they already have to questions on
the Open Issues page before the event so that we don't waste time
and also ask you to be sensitive to Frederik's observation that voice
Gervase Markham wrote:
Taking ODbL 0.9 instead of 1.0, I think that's at least debatable,
given the issues raised by the ITO lawyer and others.
But happily no-one is proposing that we move to 0.9. So let's put some
effort into getting 1.0 as good as it can be.
To date the only Difficult
Ulf Möller wrote:
Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on
the ODbL on the co-ment website.
Though I have a lot of time for CC in general, and agree with their general
stance that PD is the ideal way to go, I don't really find that a very
useful response.
I count 20
TimSC wrote:
The safe move move might be to use the latest date. Now based
on the Office of Public Service Information web page the copyright
year IS the year of first publication
My understanding is that this could refer to first publication of the
revised edition - in other words, take
901 - 1000 of 1720 matches
Mail list logo
