Hi André,
I know that the situation is quite clear to you. But it obviously it is not
to everyone. The point of this discussion is not convincing you. It is
about convincing the community. Repeating how certain you are about your
opinion and calling others names is not the way to do that.
The
On 2017-05-10 11:58, joost schouppe wrote:
>
> I guess Glenn’s point is that the license issue cannot be
> circumvented, even if the king itself says something different
> than its contents.
>
> André, could you elaborate the statement that tracing = consulting? I
> don't really
On 2017-05-08 15:09, mgwebm...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> André,
>
> I guess Glenn’s point is that the license issue cannot be
> circumvented, even if the king itself says something different than
> its contents.
>
> You said that Glenn looked at the wrong file, but as far as I can see
> you didn’t
Hi,
Sorry, this became a rather long mail. But it is important, and I tried to
be as clear as possible.
Meanwhile I spoke with Lionel on our Riot channel [1] and with Simon Poole
through legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org.
If I understood, André says this:
- the license for all the geoportail
>
> I guess Glenn’s point is that the license issue cannot be circumvented,
> even if the king itself says something different than its contents.
>
I'm not really sure about this, but I think it could work if the copyright
owner creates some official documentation explaining that tracing on top
André,
I guess Glenn’s point is that the license issue cannot be circumvented, even if
the king itself says something different than its contents.
You said that Glenn looked at the wrong file, but as far as I can see you
didn’t provide any other one. Did you ?
From the OSM point of view,
Très long message... Read throughout, up to the end absolutely! Highly
important!
Despite the explanation on SPW's site that PICC browsing & tracing is
public domain and the report from Julien Fastré, recalled by myself, of
what the PICC told him, the SPW would certainly not sue OSM for using
