On 10 January 2012 20:38, Steve Bennett wrote:
> That's the point. I'm not surprised, I'm not offended. I believe the
> disgruntled have made their point, and I definitely supported them
> while the debate was active. Now that it's over, and a done deal, I
> think it would be much better for them
On 3 September 2011 19:12, Simon Poole wrote:
> This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed out
> before
> there are further "minor" points that would have to be considered, for
> example
> voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply assume
> tha
On 3 September 2011 14:03, Russ Nelson wrote:
> be difficult to prove. Since 1) the defense is strong, 2) the harm is
> minimal, 3) cooperation is full, you should expect absolutely nobody
> to sue the OSMF for infringement of works which are supposedly PD or
> CT but not really.
The position tak
On 31 August 2011 17:06, Simon Poole wrote:
> - ignore trolling by JohnSmith
Funny way to ignore someone, in any case here's at least one particular example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14416
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetma
On 31 August 2011 15:43, Russ Nelson wrote:
> John Smith writes:
> > On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang
> is
> >
> > What about the people that
On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>
> I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang is
What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had data compatible
with the current license, cc-by-sa ?
___
talk mailing lis
On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer gmail.com> writes:
>
>>This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF
>>"relatively unimportant" if it is rights holder for all the data?
>
> It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the r
On 25 August 2011 19:15, Ed Avis wrote:
> Hasn't it happened in the past that large numbers of Cloudmade employees have
> joined the OSMF? That didn't cause the organization to be somehow subverted,
> and neither will people who work for Skobbler (or Microsoft, or whoever).
In the past OSM-F was
On 8 August 2011 07:46, Richard Weait wrote:
> As I remember it from previous discussions, wifi locations are
> somewhat transient for OSM. Cell tower locations are likely from
> government databases are they not?
Google etc estimate location of towers by using data handsets expose.
> Given tha
On 29 July 2011 14:22, Stephen Hope wrote:
> On 28 July 2011 21:52, Brian Quinion
> wrote:
>>
>> Now that said I don't really care which tag is used for the 'full'
>> name. I'd personally prefer the name tag was used for this because it
>> has always been the policy of OSM that the name tag inc
On 27 July 2011 22:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>> The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate
>> Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period.
>
> Not in British English, it isn't.
>
> "_S
On 27 July 2011 21:48, David Earl wrote:
> "Commonly abbreviated S. or St. ... Abbreviations: S. and St., pl. SS. and
> Sts. Since the 18th c. ‘St.’ is the form usually employed; but since about
> 1830 ‘S.’ has been favoured by ecclesiologists. In place-names, and in
> family names derived from th
On 27 July 2011 21:21, Paul Jaggard wrote:
>> From: John Smith
>> The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate
>> Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period.
>
> Exactly the opposite according to my (Collins) dictionary:
On 27 July 2011 20:50, David Earl wrote:
> While St Albans isn't big enough to feature in the list in this document, it
> does have "St. Helens" (sic). Why the period? The district council's website
The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate
Saint, where as the abbreviation
On 27 July 2011 20:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> (I'm only talking about the UK, of course, and in fact this discussion would
> be better on talk-gb.)
The person that started this thread is in New Zealand...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.or
On 14 July 2011 10:11, John Smith wrote:
> On 14 July 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> No. That patch is for "osm2pgsql-64" (with its support for 64bit IDs). Saphy
>> Mo is running a plain old (more than 12 months old) 32-bit-id osm2pgsql on a
>> Windows system.
On 14 July 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> No. That patch is for "osm2pgsql-64" (with its support for 64bit IDs). Saphy
> Mo is running a plain old (more than 12 months old) 32-bit-id osm2pgsql on a
> Windows system.
You yourself said that the 32bit version can crash if a way ends up in
pendin
On 13 July 2011 23:15, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Can someone help this person out?
You might be hitting a memory limit, even though it's running on a 64
bit system it seems to be compiled on a 32 bit system, Anthony posted
a patch to prevent exactly this sort of problem...
http://lists.openstree
On 12 July 2011 02:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>>
>> Unless you plan to enforce attribution as a minimum for produced
>> works
>
> I'm not quite sure what I've done to deserve this Groundhog Day treatment
> and be condemned to relive
On 12 July 2011 02:30, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> SimonPoole wrote:
>> there is a fair chance that either the data could be relicensed
>> under CC-by (which might be compatible with the ODbL)
>
> Absolutely. The Australian government data is CC-BY already (I'm not sure
> where this idea it's CC-BY
On 11 July 2011 22:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> (Mind you, the new license doesn't seem to keep the Brits from drawing on
> attribution-only sources released by *their* government but maybe the law is
> stricter down under?)
SteveC implied that the talks with OS were more fruitful than they
were wi
On 8 July 2011 13:59, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 7 July 2011 19:50, John Smith wrote:
>> On 7 July 2011 23:33, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>>> In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St.
>>>> George Bank in Australia and there is a tow
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
> But that doesn't mean that "their" content won't show up in a future ODBL
> map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but
> perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a nod
On 7 July 2011 23:33, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St.
>> George Bank in Australia and there is a town named St. George.
>
> Still you say Saint George, not S.T. George.
Well you can ring up the bank/local government and tell them they
On 7 July 2011 19:23, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:
>>
>> Yes, thats the consensus and has been for a long time. Some mappers always
>> disagree, just ignore them. :-)
>>
>
> +1
>
> And in software, it is always easier to shorten a word than expanding an
> abb
On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> [] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use
> in the digital era,
You were talking about databases, however databases can still store
copyrightable content, in this case it's copyright that we're ta
On 6 July 2011 22:03, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Why on earth should we give references to proprietary data projects
>> like mapmaker in our wiki?
>
> Including it in the list gives us a chance to link to
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google_map_maker
> and explain
On 6 July 2011 07:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Now if the mapper comes along and sees the river flagged for deletion, and
> remembers that he traveled the river in a boat, and maybe even has the GPX
> track, there's nothing to keep him from simply overriding the standard
> assumption of "we will hav
On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
> What do you consider as "same result"? How far away do I have to place a node?
> If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough?
The same as in an identical result, if they use the same sources then
the only difference is
On 26 June 2011 02:38, Alan Millar wrote:
> As has been said a number of times, OSM is a "do-ocracy". At this point,
> more discussions just aren't going to resolve it.
A little discussion might allow us to harmonise tags, so 10 people
don't go off and do their own thing and then need to make m
On 25 June 2011 20:47, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2011/6/25 John Smith :
>> Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports
>> such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should
>> show up sooner than grass airstrips.
>
On 25 June 2011 20:19, Lennard wrote:
> On 25-6-2011 8:35, John Smith wrote:
>
>> Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports
>> such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should
>> show up sooner than grass airstrips.
&g
On 25 June 2011 06:02, Lennard wrote:
> On 24-6-2011 4:25, Robin Paulson wrote:
>>
>> mappers in NZ have recently imported a lot of grass airstrips into
>> OSM. it appears the airstrips only render at zoom 10 on the mapnik
>> render of the map at osm.org, which looks like this:
>>
>> http://www.op
On 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson wrote:
> We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and
> every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the
> important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes
> to the "Copyrig
On 24 June 2011 18:10, Ed Loach wrote:
> But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever "they" are
> - is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
> did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say
> move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then a
On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinson wrote:
> "4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or
> the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.";
>
> Hope that helps. I am personally not goin
On 24 June 2011 14:32, Julio Costa Zambelli
wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 23:58, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making.
>
> So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me...
>
You clai
On 24 June 2011 08:49, Julio Costa Zambelli
wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets wrote:
>>
>> It's much closer to what's been
>> happening in the Arab States this year:
>
> There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and
> Arab Countries, and the License discussi
On 24 June 2011 07:39, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that
Francis Davey, who also claims to be a lawyer, gave an opposite opinion.
> CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by
Which is a false premis
On 24 June 2011 04:43, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and
> that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and
> provide it under PD myself.
Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright,
On 24 June 2011 04:14, David Murn wrote:
> I pointed this out once and the response was that osm.org doesnt need
> attribution because there is a logo in the top-left corner.
>
> I guess the same logic could be applied here, since the name
> 'OpenStreetMap' is on the fosm.org page.
As I pointed o
On 24 June 2011 02:36, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> 1. Signing your rights away is not necessarily a bad thing. (The FSF
> asks you to do exactly that when contributing to GNU software
> projects, for good reasons, though others may rightfully disagree.)
>
> 2. Anyway, the OSM CT does not require
On 24 June 2011 02:00, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> There are two plausible legal interpretations:
> - the "original author" is "OpenStreetMap"
> - the "original author" are a lot of individuals
You left off companies that have donated data.
> No matter which interpretation you choose, your website doe
On 24 June 2011 01:49, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 2011-06-23 John Smith:
>>> Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
>>> ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0:
>>
>> As you said yourself above it
On 24 June 2011 01:41, Robert Scott wrote:
> So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be
> answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how
> unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets
> a veto on everyth
On 24 June 2011 01:27, Robert Scott wrote:
> So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole
> list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your
> point?
My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even
OSM-F isn't willing to give it's own co
On 24 June 2011 01:02, Robert Scott wrote:
> Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the
> OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to
> OpenStreetMap.
For starters you are confusing OSM contributors with OSM-F who
operates the website and
On 23 June 2011 22:20, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote:
> But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed
> should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a
> CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.
Erm how is this any better
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
>> The data is rendered from FOSM data.
>
> Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries to hide any
kind of attribution, yet you e
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
>> The data is rendered from FOSM data.
>
> Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM...
On 23 June 2011 21:47, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list
> attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices
> (because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that
> use multiple sources (because in these
On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the "Copyright &
> License" link.
Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at
the bottom right side of the map.
> The "Demo archive.org Tile Hosting" map, on the other hand
On 23 June 2011 21:00, Matt Williams wrote:
> No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright & License' link in the sidebar on the left.
Nice and obscure...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>> did you see this?
>> http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
>>
>
> That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution.
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>> did you see this?
>> http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
>>
>
> That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm lo
On 18 June 2011 02:40, Rob Myers wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith
> wrote:
>> Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced
>> work and so on.
>
> It's a novel concept, to be sure. but if you want to understand it
&g
On 18 June 2011 02:26, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> I don't think you're going to get clear answers about these specific
> cases. It will take a court decision to provide precedent rulings on
> such things.
Well the copyright side of things seems pretty simple, especially if
people are using CC0/
On 18 June 2011 01:46, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> Let me try copyright-only examples.
>
> I can take up the full text of all of the works of William
> Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the
> book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is
> alre
On 18 June 2011 01:18, Kate Chapman wrote:
> Hi Frederik,
>
> Yes I agree that the arm chair mapping isn't the best method of
> collection. Though in some areas it will be difficult to ever have
> mappers on the ground without imagery. The cost of a GPS is
> prohibitive in many places.
For othe
On 18 June 2011 00:50, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.06.2011 16:39, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
>
> ...
>>
>> 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights
>> publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in
>> country B without database rights? The second person
On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
> patents to prove to you that your reasoning "either something is CC-BY-SA or
> it isn't" is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist
> limitations external to t
On 18 June 2011 00:32, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote:
>> So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced
>> works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from,
>
> Do read the discussions I had with odc-discuss when
On 18 June 2011 00:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/17/11 16:20, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> Patents don't apply here
>
> I am trying to make a general point about the scope of CC licenses, to which
> the "patents" example is relevant.
>
On 17 June 2011 18:38, Rob Myers wrote:
> Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
> Produced Work.
So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.o
On 17 June 2011 13:19, David Murn wrote:
> There are numerous programs that exist which show the density of mapping
> in certain areas. Maybe it would be useful to find the more heavily
> mapped areas that dont have coverage?
That's making assumptions that larger towns are mapped already,
howeve
On 16 June 2011 20:37, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
> JohnSmitty wrote:
>>
>> http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2501/sancturymap.png
>>
>> Seems to look like an OSM map to me, I don't have access to all
>> credits, so no idea if it was credited or not..
>
> I'm pretty sure that's Google Maps in Lowe
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2501/sancturymap.png
Seems to look like an OSM map to me, I don't have access to all
credits, so no idea if it was credited or not..
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/
On 16 June 2011 04:54, Russ Nelson wrote:
> As usual, the majority is right, and the minority (both 20%'s!) are
> wrong. The question that we need to worry about is not the legal terms
> of the license, but instead: will changing the license hurt the
> community more than leaving it alone. I'm not
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F. wrote:
> It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are
> trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a
> conflict. I find this irritating.
No, this isn't a new thing, this has pretty much existed ever since
people
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheBoyGeniusReport/~3/8nAQktIAPQk/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 14 June 2011 23:29, Jonas Krückel wrote:
> Well, it would be nice and we could certainly ask for it, but with CC-BY-SA
> only the end product falls under the license and not the processed data in
> between. Once we move on to ODbL however, this will change and we will get
> the much more intere
On 13 June 2011 18:01, Ed Loach wrote:
> If I recall correctly, the Mapnik “Openstreetmap Mode” requires Silverlight,
> so the link below might show you a different view if you don’t have it
> installed. Or perhaps I’m thinking of the Map App, if that is different?
I'd forgotten about that and it
On 13 June 2011 17:07, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Jochen,
>
> I see attribution on my browser (bottom left corner). Rendering is, I think
> standard mapnik, looks ok to me.
>
> Andrew E, did you try my link and zoom over to Korea. I think you'll find
> all the OSM data there looking quite good.
I onl
On 12 June 2011 19:29, Nic Roets wrote:
> I'm much more worried about the effects of a fork. If we spend time
> updating a number of forks, it will detract from time that we could
> have spent mapping.
I was in that frame of thinking 3-6 months ago, but unless something
radical occurs in a very s
Did anyone try to mark tiles as dirty, I've done this in the past and
it seems to re-render properly, no idea why it occurs or why marking
it as dirty fixes things, seems to be inconsistent so might be a
mapnik bug.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetm
On 27 May 2011 04:19, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Totally anonymous edits existed once in OSM, until 2007. See the first
> link in my original message (mysteriously not referred to in the
> message body..hm). They were abandoned for different reasons I
> believe, the wiki page gives some explanation
On 27 May 2011 03:51, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Consider the following application scheme:
> * a twitter user sends a geo-located tweet containing a specified
> hashtag, say #addosm and key-value pairs like "amenity:pub;name:Red
> Devil;smoking:yes"
> * a twitter scraper picks up the t
On 26 May 2011 18:53, Richard Mann wrote:
> Unless you operate to peculiar safety standards, there'll probably be
> a stop sign on the track some way either side of the former
> crossing(probably set for the stopping distance of the heaviest train
> operating at linespeed, and taking the gradient
On 26 May 2011 05:10, Richard Weait wrote:
> HI all,
>
> What should be done with a level_crossing, when trains may cross no longer?
>
> The junction was a level_crossing, but has been repaved and
> re-sculpted. The rails are now covered by 0.3 - 0.4 m of asphalt
> which appears to have been laid
On 2 May 2011 15:56, Gregor Horvath wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I could not find a wiki page nor relevant data on how
> to tag a touristic relevant road.
> There is the scenic=yes tag, but maybe only a part of the touristic
> road is scenic but the whole road (relation) may be of touristic
> interest (for
On 16 April 2011 22:10, Ian Dees wrote:
> doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for
> No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change
> license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of
> the desire with the commu
On 16 April 2011 19:49, Lester Caine wrote:
> No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having
> the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a
> problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend
> that common courtesy. I find
On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caine wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine wrote:
>>>
>>> The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
>>> 'commercial' data into that should unde
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine wrote:
> The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
> 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government
> have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so
> my own 'need' for OSM ha
On 16 April 2011 17:42, Dermot McNally wrote:
> wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally
> abject opposition should come after, not before, "neutral" appraisal
> of the proposal, shouldn't it?
There has been so many issues with the new license, the new
contributor terms
On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork
> has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors
> retaining their own copyright.
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/
> and interesting
On 16 April 2011 13:43, John Smith wrote:
> On 16 April 2011 13:25, Richard Welty wrote:
>> what i'm after are parameters so that the routing engines present
>> rational results to drivers who aren't me. so why don't we focus on
>> the actual problem in front
On 16 April 2011 13:25, Richard Welty wrote:
> what i'm after are parameters so that the routing engines present
> rational results to drivers who aren't me. so why don't we focus on
> the actual problem in front of us instead of posturing about our
> driving skills.
Well you seemed to have skipp
On 16 April 2011 01:30, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I suggest you also add source:maxspeed=US:NY:rural or sth. similar to
> the roads with no explicit maxspeed sign.
Well he said 55mph is the default maximum for unsigned roads, wouldn't
it be more useful for routing software to know that, than k
On 16 April 2011 00:36, Richard Welty wrote:
> i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
> on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which
> do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not
> reasonable unless you're a rally driver an
On 15 April 2011 12:51, David Murn wrote:
> This was a question in regards to whether you will reverse the selection
> of someone accepting the new licence/terms, if you (or they) become
> aware the data is tainted.
Wouldn't breach of clause 1 break the entire contract ?
On 15 April 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Eric Marsden wrote:
>>
>> It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on
>> the wiki, whether choosing "Decline" is a irreversible decision, or
>> whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT.
>
> "
On 14 April 2011 22:20, Tom Hughes wrote:
> If you mean that currently there is no decline button for existing
> contributors then that is a feature, not a bug. When making a decision
> becomes mandatory on Sunday there will be a decline button.
I reported it several messages back.
I see a decli
On 14 April 2011 19:56, Michael Collinson wrote:
> Don't forget this is a pre-announcement! The technical implementation is
> ongoing thanks to Tom, Matt and Grant. The revised contributor terms should
> now be live and I have just got the go ahead to be able to announce that the
> mandatory Acce
On 14 April 2011 00:49, Ed Avis wrote:
> It's _a_ goal but I think the more important selling points for ODbL/DbCL
> are the positive ones - more uses it would permit for the data, for example
> distributing map tiles without having to follow any particular licence for
> them.
Some claim it woul
On 14 April 2011 03:24, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> This results in bad rendering for low zoom tiles, with the lake
> showing up on zoom6 but not on zoom5 (in Mapnik).
Wouldn't it be better to fix the rendering side of things, than
incorrectly mapping just so it renders how you expect it to?
In
On 13 April 2011 10:44, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:59 PM, SomeoneElse
> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>> "https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms"; appears unchanged. Is that some
>> sort of caching effect, or does "has been improved" actually mean "is about
>> to be improved, but has
On 25 March 2011 14:11, Russ Nelson wrote:
> So why aren't the ODbL folks being told the same thing? You want a
> different license? Hey, great, no problem, go ahead, create a fork of
> OSM. But don't expect us to follow you.
Anthony has been asking this for some time, since copying suitable
data
On 24 March 2011 06:00, Richard Weait wrote:
> It's an inoculation. A bit of a pinch, and a sore spot on the arm for
> a day, but we're all better off afterwards.
It's more like a tainted vaxination, the kind where you end up a lot worst off.
> ODbL gives us the real share-alike, open data lice
On 23 March 2011 20:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I don't agree. Of course it is important how much of the data will
> survive, but it is even more important to not loose active
> contributors.
Many that were previously active contributors have since stopped
contributing until this mess is sor
1 - 100 of 1754 matches
Mail list logo
