The OpenStreetMap London group would like to invite you to our next
development event. If you'd be interested in a weekend of collaborative
development of OpenStreetMap and open geodata technologies, please sign up
at http://www.eventbrite.com/e/osm-london-hack-weekend-tickets-17511175397
Sadly,
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more of a theoretical
body have reduced the profit and motivation in doing a SOTM to approximately
zero. I hope it still happens, but I'd be surprised.
it wasn't so
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Kathleen Danielson
kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 2014 9:15 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more
hi everyone,
the SOTM-EU call for presentations [1] closes on Monday (17th)!
i'd like to encourage you to share an idea with the OSM community at
the EU conferece - it's going to be a great time to start
collaborations and discussions, and help make OSM better. so if
there's anything you're
we're having a hack weekend on the 8th and 9th March, graciously
hosted by AOL / MapQuest at their offices in central London. it would
be great to see you there!
full details are available on the wiki page [1], and there's also an
event on Lanyrd [2]. please sign up to at least one of these if
after the last hack weekend, i wanted to have another around the
beginning of March, and that's rapidly approaching. here's a doodle
poll for the weekends and if you're interested in coming, please
indicate which weekends you'd be available.
http://www.doodle.com/hh4vnx2p8kzrnypv#table
thanks,
hi everyone,
the SOTM-EU call for presentations [1] has been announced. if you're
working on a tool, some software, a research or community project or
business - or anything related to OSM then it would be great to have a
presentation sharing your ideas at SOTM-EU.
we're looking forward to
we're having a hack weekend on the 30th November and 1st December,
graciously hosted by AOL / MapQuest at their offices in central
London. it would be great to see you there!
full details are available on the wiki page [1], and there's also an
event on Lanyrd [2]. please sign up to at least one
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
full details are available on the wiki page [1], and there's also an
event on Lanyrd [2].
of course, it would have been more helpful if i'd actually put the links in...
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
## Proposal
Inspired by successful campaigns like Intel Inside and Fair Trade, this
RFC proposes an OpenStreetMap contributor mark for use on OpenStreetMap based
maps. The goal of the OSM contributor mark is to be adopted by
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
a link to the copyright page [1]
oops, forgot to add the footnote last time
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr wrote:
2013/1/8 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
That is exactly the approach that I would recommend if someone were to ask
me how to move forward - have a small discussion if you want but
essentially, just build the
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Paweł Paprota ppa...@fastmail.fm wrote:
(...)
What you describe sounds good in theory (ecosystem) but in practice it
does not work that way. You can't just pick and choose some cool
projects and integrate them into the main site.
it's possible - and it's
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Paweł Paprota ppa...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Ideally people from the ecosystem would be willing to write some code to
integrate their cool projects into the main site. That is clearly not
happening.
sure, ideally. it doesn't happen often and there are a wide range of
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de wrote:
Dear Matt,
Ideally people from the ecosystem would be willing to write some code to
integrate their cool projects into the main site. That is clearly not
happening.
sure, ideally. it doesn't happen often and
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 09:36 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote:
It turns out there are many other interesting uses of multiple layers but also
many technical and social questions around them. I have written down my
thoughts
on this subject in a (rather lengthy) blog post:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM, John Goodman j...@qlam.com wrote:
I sent a message to User Matt (who supposedly maintains OWL) last Friday,
but never got a reply.
deepest apologies for not getting back to you. unfortunately the
ongoing license change is absorbing all of my free time at the
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
There are tons of things. People drive in the US so pubs are difficult to
arrange things around. Mapping in the US is boring because of the big gridded
cities. I map much less in the US than the UK. It's not just that there
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Grant Slater openstreetmap@... writes:
- block anyone who says no from contributing
and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors.
Reality check... So to steal all our precious data and kick the
majority of the
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Samat K Jain li...@samat.org wrote:
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 08:26:28 AM Kai Krueger wrote:
Yes, there is a fully functional OpenID implementation.
http://openid.dev.openstreetmap.org/
However, it currently doesn't seem to have the political support necessary
i know being able to agree to the new CTs is a concern for some
people, especially with sources which may have been used in only a
small number of edits. one potential solution could be allowing each
changeset to carry some relicensability information, as richard sets
out below. there's a survey
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM
sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
OS OpenData is out-of-date. The April 2010 StreetView tiles are at least 2
years old, and where I've checked VDM is similarly dated. I have not failed
to find a significant change between OS OpenData (and
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
On 3 February 2011 11:32, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM
sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
OS OpenData is out-of-date. The April 2010 StreetView tiles
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Dair Grant dair@... writes:
There is suggestion raised by a number of people, but refuted by others that
imports reduce the number of contributors.
It has been denied, not refuted. I think the closest there is to real data
on
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The original decision that there should be no duplicate nodes simply ignored
many of the arguments that there are very good reasons for needing them,
then tools like the duplicate nodes map ASSUME that the decision takes
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Oscar Orbe oskaro...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear list
I am uploading some landuse polygons and sometimes I get the error that says
something like that node does not exist.
I think there are people removing unused nodes too fast.
Perhaps those people can change
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Your original complaint was about people removing *duplicate* nodes
though, not people removing fresh, unused nodes. That's another
situation; if your upload creates duplicate nodes then your upload
for those of us who can't make it across the pond for sotm this year
(or even for those who fancy going to both), and who might have missed
this on talk@, there's an european sotm going on and the call for
papers just opened up. i'm sure everyone has something interesting
they've seen, done or are
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Following the rest of the current problems, is the API now also down? JOSM
hangs on creating a new changeset and then after a while says communication
timed out.
should be back now. problem seems to have been an obscure
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Emilie Laffray
emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 November 2010 09:00, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote:
Is there an easy way to track deletions only in a particular area?
I've noticed a couple features missing in Kibera, and paging through
. some places will
be easier mapped by car or on foot ;-)
cheers,
matt
Cheerio John
On 20 October 2010 20:13, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
this list has come in for some criticism recently, and there are many
people who have, publicly or otherwise, decided not to read
this list has come in for some criticism recently, and there are many
people who have, publicly or otherwise, decided not to read it or
contribute to it any more. i've set up a wiki page to help us gather
suggestions and ideas for improving this list, or maybe even trying
something new in its
as part of the voluntary relicensing phase of the move to ODbL,
existing contributors have had the ability to voluntarily accept the
contributor terms. to help the community assess the impact of the
relicensing it was planned to make the information about which
accounts have agreed available. this
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
We will have to ask the agencies to agree with the Contributor Terms
but if we are changing to a PD license disguised as BY-SA (via the CT)
they probably will not cooperate.
OSMF is not moving to a PD
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database
and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the
database
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
OSMF is not moving to a PD license disguised as BY-SA, OSMF would
like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2010 07:43, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?
That isn't the point, the point was about it *explicitly* removing any
claim of copyright, which
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
they do. and it's
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
think otherwise? Exact quotes
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2010 08:02, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!
How many different lawyers have
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Matt, you really do need to read up on case law about the minimum threshold
for copyrightability.
i have. but perhaps you could point out the judgements you're
referring to, because i've not seen them.
cheers,
matt
I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying.
Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an
unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of
the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer.
Cheers,
+1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed
to work. anyway, i agree with phil.
cheers,
matt
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James peerja...@googlemail.com wrote:
At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely
favourable responses to this idea,
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
My suggestions:
1) Please reword the list to not have judgemental label on it. just the
facts
i've removed the list. it was intended as a bit of fun, certainly not
to offend anyone and i honestly didn't expect anyone
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
The upgrade clause in the ODbL should be sufficient
for any future licensing, and if the change is away from that, I expect
as a contributor to be consulted about it.
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:21:41AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about
contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is about.
i'm both a producer
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:04 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of the share-alike principle is to enable derived work to be fed
back into the main body.
that's your opinion. my opinion is that the purpose of share alike is
to allow data to be remixed, mashed-up or otherwise modified
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be acceptable?
The current situation is acceptable. We all grant a license to everyone
under CC-BY-SA.
which ranges from being basically PD in some
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Aun Johnsen li...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
1. What do we want to protect?
The data is fully open, but some people want to reduce their fingerprint on
the
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 9:38 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think OAuth is a valid security method.
why not?
cheers,
matt
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 12:30 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/26 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 9:38 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think OAuth is a valid security
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
because OAuth does cryptographic signing of the requests.
Via a clear channel, which can be proxied and mangled and so on.
proxied yes, mangled no. the cryptographic
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 2:25 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
because OAuth does cryptographic signing
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 3:05 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
which means there's no argument here for using SSL on vodafone.
I have no idea what Voda is up to, because they would throw up all
sorts of warning messages from browsers
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Lulu-Ann lulu-...@gmx.de wrote:
the end of voting comes closer and nobody has answered the questions on
the license use cases page yet.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases
i think i got them all. and the answers mainly came from
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Florian Lohoff wrote:
Um, if you are nervous about others knowing that you participate in this
project, then why do you do it? Is there an establishment out there that has
an interest in preventing you from doing
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Andre Hinrichs wrote:
Anyway, if not many services use it (except t...@h) it would not create a
high load on the server, so why drop it?
I think it is certainly an odd one out among the API calls; no other
API call
the wiki currently has the meetup set for the john snow on tuesday[1].
how do people feel about moving that to wednesday?
cheers,
matt
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London/Winter_2009-2010_Pub_Meetup
___
Talk-GB mailing list
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au wrote:
Maybe I missed something in the discussion but...
Why must there be migration to the new licence?
mainly because the current license doesn't work. that is; in some
jurisdictions it isn't able to enforce the
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote:
CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such
demand.
ODbL does make such a demand, see:
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It's clearly not the same difficulty. And the point of this is that it's
going to be almost impossible to detect a derived database in use. You said
yourself that you'd just assume that anyone processing OSM data would be
presumed
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The example I described above
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D,
then
company D
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
OdbL has this requirement where, if you publish a produced work
based on a derived database, you also have to publish either
(a) the derived database or
(b) a diff allowing someone to arrive at the derived
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their
intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an
intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company
A to warrant that
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:20 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data
isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut
instinct. what do you do
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the on the
ground rule? ;-)
The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for
having
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:52 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's
a subtle, but often
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM,
mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'mapp...@sheerman
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
So my question is:
1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text OSMF counsel
does not believe on something that seems to have fundamental
significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
So my question is:
1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text OSMF counsel
does not believe on something that seems to have fundamental
significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by
companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF
membership and
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of
our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please.
Show us the evidence of license abuse please.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned
by
companies like Navteq
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
is CC-BY-SA owned
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not. And I've asked on the legal list
(so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor Terms
requires also agreeing to the ODbL in ways that purport to reach beyond
copyright
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
position about other peoples opinions when
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, when I
download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the ODbL?
Absolutely nothing.
your email here proves you are aware of the terms of such a download. :-)
for people who haven't so publicly demonstrated
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Shaun McDonald schrieb:
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on
the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems
than myself. They are people that I trust.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, when I
download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the
ODbL
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM
would
even consider
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Matt Amos schreef:
we're talking about moving to another
license with very similar requirements, but a different
implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would
really help me if i could understand your
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
therefore, if someone downloads if from
them, the license notice is intact and they implicitly agree to it as
soon as they are simultaneously aware
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
CC BY-SA imposes requirements *using* copyright law.
No it doesn't. Copyright law imposes requirements. CC-BY-SA provides a
waiver to some of those
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi wrote:
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@... writes:
From: paul everett tap...@...
What happens if the user imports an OSM file and I convert it to a
virtual city model ?
Then the city model has to be licensed the same
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
If I have data derived from OSM data, do I have to distribute it? The
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:48 AM, David Vaarwerk da...@mineraldata.com.au wrote:
Thanks for your all the responses, they do help.
I think keeping the map and the business data separate with a double
license is the best solution as suggested.
So I will have a map with only OSM data, obviously
On 11/2/09, David Vaarwerk da...@mineraldata.com.au wrote:
I have made a map and business guide from scratch that you can
see here http://www.mineraldata.com.au/wp/index.html [1]. I would like to
share the map data with OSM and use OSM as a base map for this and other
maps/ business guides - I
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Valent Turkovic
valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:29:37 -0500, Ian Dees wrote:
Although it may/may not be illegal, it is definitely a breach of
contract.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
you'd happily support distributing the data under a license which is
not likely to protect it?
I happily support the status quo, where map data is freely available
under CC share-alike terms
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
Dr Evil doesn't need an unlimited legal budget - he just needs to live
in a country where non-creative data isn't copyrightable.
...and in a country where it is crystal clear that the OSM data
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Remember, though, that there are huge transaction costs associated with any
licence switch. Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal, it might
be better than deleting big chunks out of the database and alienating
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
we at the LWG have been working very hard to produce the
license that we think the majority of OSM contributors want. a large
amount of previous discussion on this and the talk MLs has suggested
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and
isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license,
which license?
I would prefer one which is CC-compatible
On 10/28/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
let's assume some data are taken and modified and used to generate
tiles. the ODbL would require that the modified data are made
available, regardless of the license of the tiles. if the data were
effectively-PD
On 10/28/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
these sites are in non-compliance with the license
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
Would switching to ODBL (or any licence) solve this particular problem?
quite possibly, since ODbL
On 10/28/09, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
we had a long thread on this a couple of weeks ago (ODbL virality
questions) from which i think the consensus was that linking OSM data
with data from independent sources
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Sven Benhaupt
sven.benha...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/10/26 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Thanks a lot for your quick answer, this was very helpful for me.
If so - would it also be legally ok if I would create a print map
Yes, but the printed map is not
1 - 100 di 246 matches
Mail list logo
