Translation in english of the title : Municipalities and government of
Québec (Canada) will adopt the CC BY 4.0 -
Ref. :
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2014-February/006069.html
Dear Paul,
I am sorry to contradict you, but please find attached copy of my
conversation
Municipalities and government of Québec will adopt the CC BY 4.0
Diane
Le 2014-02-21 07:04, Simon Poole a écrit :
This is I believe a simple misunderstanding:
le...@osmfoundation.org is the internal list of the LWG
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org is the legal discussion mailing list open
to
Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official
confirmation of the exact license adopted.
Bonne nouvelle pour les contributeurs OSM-Québec. Attendons cependant la
confirmation officielle de la licence exacte adoptée.
Pierre
De
Hi Paul, I was following your message until this statement, where I got
confused. Are you saying the city of Langley is not a city? What do you
mean by in British English?
That's all fairly simple, but the place node is more complicated. Langley
is
not a city in British English, but a town.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote:
Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official
confirmation of the exact license adopted.
I disagree.
Any license drafted or adopted by a Canadian government, other than a
no-restrictions,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
[ ... ]
Again, any government open data publication in Canada must be licensed
ODC-PDDL, or else it is a not-open-enough-closed-data-failure.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote:
Eh good news for OSM-Quebec community then. Let's wait for the official
confirmation of the exact license adopted.
I disagree.
Any license
This is I believe a simple misunderstanding:
le...@osmfoundation.org is the internal list of the LWG
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org is the legal discussion mailing list
open to the general public.
On the matter at hand: as I write in the quoted mail, we are quite open
to taking the
My comments largely revolve around the use of editor based deprecation.
---
One comment is specific to GNS. The gns:uni and gns:ufi are a primary keys
in the source data, and as such should definitely be kept to aid in future
matching or conflation of the object. See:
Looking at the Township and City of Langley, I see that these relations are
duplicate polygons that share the exact same nodes. Then why two relations?
Instead, would it be better to simply use alt_name for the city, added to the
Township of Langley. Such Classification where you have two
CC BY 3.0 and earlier had onerous attribution requirements for data. I believe
4.0 fixes this. I don't think anyone has suggested contacting a data provider
who's licensed under CC 4.0 licenses to clarify attribution.
The issue with 3.0 attribution are not purely theoretical, there have been
Oups I was wrong in identifiying the polygons in JOSM.
These are two adjacent polygons, the city being surrounded by the township.
The difference in spelling comes from the alt_name=Langley.
I should have mapped for the Night of the living map instead. Or maybe not!
Pierre
12 matches
Mail list logo
