On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Emilie Laffray
emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private
conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court.
That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is
changes
to that version. Simply negating changes does not delete copyright
ownership because the ownership extends to the whole work.
Does anyone know of any precedents that show how copyright, once gained,
can be deleted from a work?
80n
[1] Section 1 (b) (i) of
http://membled.com/work/osm
to be considered to be unsafe.
80n
[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-October/018638.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
edits to non-CT content?
80n
[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-December/060996.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... ]
Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?
And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how?
I don't think I made any point
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?
There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as non-CT content
can take two forms.
There is content that will not be relicensed
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final word
- not even an official word - on the question of what gets deleted. It is
just my interpretation of the current situation.
Frederik, If the OSM
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:03 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote:
On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote:
You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get
deleted.
The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed.
According to the OSMF wiki
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
I think Frederik has managed to decimate more of London than five years
of bombing did during WW2 ;)
Well, there's quite an easy way for you and Ed A to fix that, of course. ;)
Richard, I already
except
the USA there isn't this problem.
Does anyone have insight into how Wikipedia deal with this? Is it even a
concern for them, and if not, why not?
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
grant? Would the Contributor Terms deny them any of their
joint ownership rights?
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
* Tracing from maps, and from GPS tracks, is most likely copyrightable.
Although the GPS tracks are unlikely to be copyrightable.
Oops, I meant to say:
* Tracing from imagery, and from GPS tracks, is most likely copyrightable
it.
80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Work 100% faithfully from the Derived
Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of the
information required to create the Produced Work?
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 11/28/11 10:43, 80n wrote:
If you cannot reproduce the Produced Work 100% faithfully from the
Derived Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of
the information required to create
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 11/28/11 11:58, 80n wrote:
That's a very fine line you are trying to draw.
Yes, I agree it is difficult. I think that it is entirely possible to
arrive at an identical end product through different
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I see that you and Frederik disagreed here. (FWIW I think he is right -
a PNG
file can clearly be seen as a database of pixel values. It is an
from it and tracing.
80n
[1] You have to do this step because any unfriendly publisher would block
the use of the ODbL content directly by simply refusing to agree to the
Contributor Terms.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 27 September 2011 12:09, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Andrew.
I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted
reason that
you can't then you need to explain yourself.
80n
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
guessing.
Based on the reply that I received from Grant, he appears to have no
intention of providing any information to back up his claims.
It's over a month since he was asked to provide the supporting evidence. I
think we can conclude that he doesn't have it.
80n
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com
waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
+1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than
transcribing parts of the emails (?!).
Did you consider why
wouldn't OSM publish their tiles under the most liberal license they are
able to?
80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:48 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew, that's great that you've had a response from AGIMO.
Yes it is, I made sure to thank them for this.
Would it be possible for you to share
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
On 27 September 2011 12:09, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Andrew.
I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted it in a
different way. Grant?
Hi 80n, yes the responses
what they think they've granted as a right,
rather than what permissions you think they've given.
80n
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
hand documentary evidence for any claim, either
way, to have any value.
80n
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
wrote:
Hi 80n,
Sorry I'm missing this - but I just arrived back from Colorado yesterday
and have had a family occasion too, so consequently a bit tired!
Would be good to know of any missing footpaths still
?
80n
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2011 19:49, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
That reminds me.. I've just updated the name of the Princess Highway
through Engadine based on the signed name via ground survey. I've made
the
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Furthermore, the goal is not to have a CT-clean database. You already
have a CT-clean database. The goal, apparently, is to have an
ODbL-clean database.
I think you mean a CT-clean contributor-base. Much of the database
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have made
some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to vouch for
the data and accept the CTs?
This seems simple. All you need to do is
employees and
associates all spontaneously decided to join OSMF within one twenty-four
hour period?
80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
about OSM when the evidence
suggests it was a co-ordinated act probably for the purpose of block
voting.
Jim, there is nothing wrong with doing such a thing, and I'm puzzled why you
make some other excuse.
80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Barnett, Phillip
phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote:
From the legislation guidance notes
An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual
from other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name together
with some other
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:47, 80n wrote:
The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people
were members of OSMF. Membership of an organisation is personal
information and we did not want to leak that information
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
On 25 August 2011 16:23, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Grant
It's an OSM mapping party. Are you going to come along?
Great. What brought on the change of heart?
You misunderstand. There is no change
OSMF 2 years ago and we encouraged that. And we got the same
reaction from some parts of the community.
Jim
My recollection was that they all got passionate about OSM on the same day,
just one day before the close of email voting for that year's election.
Care to comment on that?
80n
However
explain the timing of this co-ordinated signup by
CloudMade employees and associates?
80n
[1]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2011-August/001145.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
...
80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Grant
It's an OSM mapping party. Are you going to come along?
80n
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
On 25 August 2011 14:49, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There's going to be a mapping party in the Surrey Hills on September
25th.
More details
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote:
Hi,
On 09.08.2011 22:43, 80n wrote:
Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale,
for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going to happen.
You're wrong with this. At least in the country
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote:
You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the
transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not
someone else's benefit, but a
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
As I do not agree with the CT and did not click
the right checkbox, I have been blocked contributing access.
** **
OSM promised me that my contributions to be removed in the
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Rather, it's this: in the absence of enforcement, good guys will comply
with
the licence voluntarily, and bad guys won't.
In the absence of enforcement they good guys will comply with the license if
they can. If
and so you'll get your CT+CC-BY-SA by default anyway (but
then I have issues with the CTs as well so it's no solution for me, which is
why I created f...).
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
license not with a
DbCL license.
I'm sure if I'm wrong about this someone will be able to point me to the
statement where this is covered.
80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
practice and advice about how to deal
with issues like parallax when tracing tall buildings, interpretation of
shadows and so on.
Anyone got any good advice or hints from practical experience about this
kind of thing?
80n
___
talk mailing list
talk
, free standing walls, shade
structures, etc?
80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
I also found this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/BuildingsTools
Not tried it yet, but may be useful for JOSM users.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:13 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
This page has some hints
Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list.
Apologies.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote:
**
If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
**
If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have direct
clarification from them that they have no objection to continued
distribution of data derived from their OS OpenData under under the ODbL. At
Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list.
Apologies.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote:
**
If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote:
I personally cannot seem to be able to get any joy from fosm.org, at
the moment I am just getting a 500 Internal Server Error message.
Me too.
data.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
process and will result in fosm being
degraded needlessly. We've talked about mechanisms for watching areas where
this might happen and for users who might be doing this. We can revert such
edits in fosm and get the good stuff back providing we notice that it has
happened.
80n
go on, but those are the big ticket items.
Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to
disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful.
You seem worried, Steve.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au
their content with *any* content license or do you think they overlooked the
need to consider this detail?
80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance
Survey that they're happy for their content to be
distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL
combination).
I
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever they are
- is there a fosmf?)
There is no fosmf, and I rather hope there never will be.
seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
did with the original CTs;
the wording on that wiki page could do with some
polishing It is impossible to adequately acknowledge the many individuals
...
Of course it's not impossible, impractical might be closer to the truth, but
I'm not even sure that conveys the right sentiment.
80n
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each
and
every extraction
anyone, its just that the community thinks that
less data under a different license is better for them. If you are happy
with the way things were then you don't have to lose anything, just change
your URL from osm.org to fosm.org.
80n
___
talk mailing
? The current plan suggests it
will be a long time yet.
80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote:
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it
will be a long time yet.
Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop
using OSM
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
**
On 6/22/2011 1:26 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote:
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:49 AM, 4x4falcon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
On 24/04/11 19:54, John Smith wrote:
Once upon a time it used to be almost a race to map out new areas from
Nearmap coverage, now whole areas of coverage go untouched for months
or longer...
Even from bing there is not
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I've even seen
status=desire to indicate that a path doesn't exist, but it would be nice
if it did...
Ed, you might be mis-understanding the meaning of that tag. Desire
paths do very much exist on the ground and don't fall
Francis
Thank you for your patience and the detail of your answers.
This whole thing is a complicated business and the subtleties when
various different licenses and so forth are combine are often
unexpected.
80n
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote
editing of *existing* content that is the breach, not the
contribution of pure new content in a previously mapped area or when
an import is performed without reference to existing content.
IANAL etc
On 4/17/11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed
the actual relicensing, since what remains is
the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone
mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus,
not breaching the CC license.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It would seem to me
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'd hate to see someone go and say we don't want your contribution. But if
any mapper really believes that at some point in the future, they will want
to withdraw their data from OSM because 2/3 of mappers choose a free
.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
wrote:
IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as
CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only
On 17 April 2011 12:09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I asked a similar question in
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html
and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is
that most likely your contribution in this case
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under
any other license than CC-BY-SA?
I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to
those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a
little clearer.
Suppose
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 19:29, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not clear about what you mean here. Can you spell it out please?
What does 'it' refer to in this sentence? why do you say obviously?
And in what sense you mean can
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If we make the numbers, then these new users are unaffected.
Now would be a good time to mention what those numbers are.
How many users need to agree to CT before the community is comfortable
with the consequential data
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to
lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status
quo. Doing nothing is not an option.
And yet we've been doing nothing
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of
cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off)
Show us the evidence to back up this assertion please.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Ed,
On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of
examples
by now.
It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some
proprietary
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example,
Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a
city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:08 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
So my understanding now, from Francis' comment, is that CC-By-SA and
CC-By are not compatible (you can't accept the CTs if you've
contributed data obtained under those licenses, without infringing
those licenses?),
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people
on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data
or
requiring every
that will happen.
More XAPI servers running on good hardware is the only realistic solution.
80n
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/fafnir
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil
vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems there is no XAPI server available for a long
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
More XAPI servers running on good hardware is the only realistic solution.
Well, there could perhaps be another solution, like running your own XAPI
server - the minutely diffs are usually less than 100Kb, so the required
It's running fine.
There are a large volume of requests, the server is fully loaded, your
requests may timeout.
More hardware would help.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
It seems to be having the same problem again. Is there a better place
to
Should be ok now. Seems like someone had been messing with the server ...
it somehow had an identity crisis.
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Oscar Orbe oskaro...@yahoo.com wrote:
aha!
that must be the reason why I was getting osm/osm files with it...
--- On *Sun, 1/9/11, Nathan Edgars II
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 19/12/10 10:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Where is this direct statement from Microsoft that says derived
information from aerial imagery delivered through their map api can be
licensed under a CT compatible license?
license agreements in my time so nothing unusual about
this one.
80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
Download the license from the OpenGeoData post, it is called Bing
Maps Imagery Editor API License FINAL.pdf
That's quite curious. Several non-Microsoft sources have indicated that the
license will be subject to
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard
that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the
control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the
On 12/9/10, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that, even more than free and open, share-alike is a term that
is very difficult to define, and if one tries to define it, one will
already have written half a new license.
Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF
a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to
their personal rights. I
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
80n,
On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote:
So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on
the level on which you are lookign for it.
Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can
from *ever* being hijacked.
I, for one, certainly want to ensure that whoever runs OSM at some
indeterminate point in the future can not pervert the principle on which I
made my contributions. Anything less is unacceptable and is disrespectful
to those who built OSM in the first place.
80n
[1
from *ever* being hijacked.
I, for one, certainly want to ensure that whoever runs OSM at some
indeterminate point in the future can not pervert the principle on which I
made my contributions. Anything less is unacceptable and is disrespectful
to those who built OSM in the first place.
80n
[1
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
On 01/12/10 08:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Andrew Harvey wrote:
Just to clarify is this
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document
which contains the license grant?
No; the document is the one
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:48 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au
wrote:
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 15:12 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess
2011's
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
I work with databases every day and I don't understand how the 'database'
versus 'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in
particular.
Imagine a database of names, song
1 - 100 di 466 matches
Mail list logo
