For the longest time it was claimed ODBL would better protect data
than CC-by-SA in some jurisdictions, with the US being one of those.
However the opposite seems true, since the above claim was based on
the premise that creating maps wasn't a creative enterprise.
The ODBL doesn't place a limit
On 15/06/2011, at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote:
The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I
were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them.
Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and
waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no
On 19 June 2011 19:32, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and
waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How
easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is
available, now would
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:32:58 +1000
Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
On 15/06/2011, at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote:
The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I
were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them.
Some of these boundaries have been edited
Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even
those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to
map data would potentially be pretty trivial.
In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL.
___
On 19/06/2011, at 7:56 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
most of those places don't have better imagery, certainly not the
places I did.
Some places do have better imagery, or in some cases GPS traces (I
noticed today some of the Barrier Hwy north of Burra is done on a
relation - I have too much
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially
for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely
difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a
database.
That's
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 19 June 2011 14:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even
those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to
map
On 19 June 2011 14:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even
those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to
map data would potentially be pretty trivial.
Nearly 12 months since you raised this
JohnSmith your four changesets today are missing descriptive
changeset comments.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/edits
The barrier here http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8480159
does not advise of the source you used. The connected way claims
yahoo as source, but that
What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT...
On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
JohnSmith your four changesets today are missing descriptive
changeset comments.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/edits
The barrier here
On 15 June 2011 06:15, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 June 2011 12:16, Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across
tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating
above
On 19 June 2011 16:00, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially
for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely
difficult for
On 20 June 2011 03:12, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
I am sure theortical (and legally risky) loopholes could be found for
example as you describe above. We could have contructed painfully
A simple admission that the previous email is a valid argument would
have sufficed
We
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:10:47 +1000
Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned?
Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?
Not everyone here has decided to give up on OSM. I'm going to decide
once I see what
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which
licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will
not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project.
Fair enough.
As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only.
Guess that's you
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100
Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg*
And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future.
Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti
I viewed these
On 20/06/11 07:20, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100
Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg*
And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future.
Case: UN:
On 19 June 2011 22:20, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100
Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg*
And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future.
Case: UN:
Quoting Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:10:47 +1000
Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned?
Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?
Rudeness won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my
Quoting John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Please clarify for us the sources of these edits?
What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT...
Now you're being rude.
It does matter - if you don't put a comment
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 09:29 +1000, Mark Pulley wrote:
Quoting John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Please clarify for us the sources of these edits?
What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT...
Now you're
On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 19 June 2011 22:20, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100
Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg*
And
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
*: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a
restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause.
The GPL isn't sold as a license which restricts the
On 20 June 2011 05:00, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which
licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will
not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project.
Fair enough.
As
On 20/06/11 11:49, James Andrewartha wrote:
Ah, that welcoming OSM spirit.
Yes, it's easy to forget sometimes that we're all friends here.
John H
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Quoting David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au:
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 09:29 +1000, Mark Pulley wrote:
Quoting John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Please clarify for us the sources of these edits?
What does it matter since I'm never
On 20 June 2011 14:49, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
Maybe Richard should have asked him privately first - I was mainly
responding to John's attitude that it didn't matter.
Well, what does it matter now that they're going to start deleting non-CT data?
Obviously there had to be
28 matches
Mail list logo
