On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement. I
said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else.
So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal
arguments than anyone
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement.
I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone
else.
So let me get this straight,
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
Well that doesn't work,
Why doesn't it work?
See legal-talk ad nauseum.
I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no
proof that CC-by-SA doesn't work
simplification of the argument does not assist anyone.
It may not protect
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a
statement. I said they are no more qualified to make
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
their data to be worth a vote
The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be
able to choose what to do with their data.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Liz wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
Well that doesn't work,
Why doesn't it work?
See legal-talk ad nauseum.
I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no
proof that CC-by-SA doesn't work
I've not seen anything proving
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
their data to be worth a vote
The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
their data to be worth a vote
The vote isn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
to do what, relicense?
Exactly; if
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and
change the license?
What do you mean change the license? Isn't your position that CC-BY-SA is
invalid in the first place?
The OSMF doesn't need permission
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
to do what, relicense?
Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually
means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
I think you hit the nail on the head.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
to do what, relicense?
Stefan,
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually
means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) Especially related
some recent cases over here with the claim This was our intention the
intention for OSM
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;)
So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or
2009/12/8 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
SteveC schreef:
You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Frederik,
Frederik Ramm schreef:
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyway,
you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
I think you hit the nail
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
Because I'm not convinced
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.comwrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
Because I'm not convinced that
On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will
give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will,
considering that Creative
On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:03 AM, 80n wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
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
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed
downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..
If you call this a vote, then we have pretty
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
It is not very wise of ODbL
proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data
without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data.
Personally I don't because the former is a legal opinion and the latter is a
moral crusade opinion.
On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed
downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will
give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will,
considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to
Open
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
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
Hi all,
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the
OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I mapped.
The Indonesian islands
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I looked at the license and I said Why are they bothering with this
crap? It's not like this stuff is copyrightable in the first place.
Well, I guess that this stuff is protected by some laws in some
jurisdictions, so CC-BY-SA is useful for waiving those rights in
SteveC wrote:
Oh we have those people though, matt is calm, rational and diligently
replying to the concerns. Note its mostly misunderstood or ignored by
people like 80n. That frees me to lose my temper with the passive
aggressive lot who just want to screw everything up and can't work
At 10:26 PM 5/12/2009, Ian Dees wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email
about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this
site. If you have not received an email, first please
At 01:58 AM 6/12/2009, John Smith wrote:
2009/12/6 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
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. Therefore
80n wrote:
You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken
as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others
would all have helped themselves to our data by now.
You can't continue
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken
as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of project
sanity: We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has
different effects in different countries.
And that is one of the
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote:
Hi all,
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the
OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The
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.
Shalabh wrote:
Steve,
I have to agree with John. Fence sitter or not, Ulf has raised a point
which has not been answered till now. More importantly, mappers like
me who contribute everyday and are not part of OSMF have no clue about
what this is. Now that this discussion is so openly in
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want
with the OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract
limiting those rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I
mapped. The Indonesian islands I
It is clear that we all have different opinions about this license
change. However, I would like to hear down-to-earth explaining what
and how will happen when license change kicks in? How OSMF will work
with contributors to get their data converted? How they will try to
convince them? etc.
If it
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office
on the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs
along with my business cards.
I think you are only required to hand out the database on which your
rendering is based. And it
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office on
the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs along
with my business cards.
I think you are only
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly
permissible
SteveC wrote:
No there's an entire other list for it... But the LWG has tried hard
to keep the other lists up to date.
The evidence with the number of posts here suggests that it didn't work.
This situation reminds me of the location of the planning application in
the opening chapters of The
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission to use
my previous contributions without any restrictions whatsoever. I don't have
a problem with that. What I have a problem with is agreeing to the ODbL.
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org
mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote:
I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission
to use my previous contributions without any restrictions
whatsoever. I don't have a problem with that.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org mailto:
o...@inbox.org wrote:
I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission
to use my previous contributions
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
So if it is really your intention to not use OSM data any more but still
let us use your past contributions, you can safely check one of the Agree
options?
By the way, I should clarify, I certainly don't plan to stop
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
My understanding is that by using this site you agree to the ODbL will be
part of the terms of service of the OSM website, so I can't even *reject*
the contributor terms without agreeing to the ODbL.
Hmm, thinking about this more,
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
I don't know. I've asked the legal list for the answer to this, and I
only got one response, which I found unclear. My understanding is that
by using this site you agree to the ODbL will be part of the terms of
service of the OSM website, so I can't even *reject* the
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Also, I don't think it is in anybody's intention to put anything else than
OSM data under the ODbL. So it should really not read by using this
site... but instead by using OSM data from this site... or so.
A specious
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email
about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this
site. If you have not received an email, first please check your
spam folder then, if
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email
about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this
site. If you have not
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote:
Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o
the OSMF can not vote on the license decision?
If so, how are non-OSMF members represented in this vote?
If a non-OSMF member rejects the Contributor Terms, all their contributions
On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote:
quote
An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid)
as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for
voting.
/quote
265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative.
Whatever the
Tom Hughes schrieb:
On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote:
quote
An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid)
as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for
voting.
/quote
265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way
On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
February
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote:
quote
An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good
standing (paid)
as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal
link for
voting.
/quote
265 persons out
On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
Tom Hughes schrieb:
On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration
James Livingston schrieb:
On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding
about voting.
I'd say it isn't a vote, it's asking whether you agree to relicense your
contributions under the ODbL subject to the Contributor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
James Livingston schreef:
For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed
Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and
world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au.
As I'm not the
Hi,
James Livingston wrote:
For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed
Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and
world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au.
As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I
Ulf Lamping wrote:
div class=moz-text-flowed style=font-family: -moz-fixedTom Hughes
schrieb:
On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
Kai Krueger schrieb:
Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with
an open community?
No, as the previous process has always been pretty open with discussions
on talk, legal-talk, the wiki and some of the mailing lists. How much
more open do you want it to be with
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. Therefore I'm going to listen to them,
and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license
2009/12/6 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
2009/12/6 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
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.
John Smith wrote:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
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. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed
downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..
If you call this a
2009/12/6 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They have
said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it.
There has also been a lot of data imported from Government sources
that released data as CC-BY-SA
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
The ODbL is overseen by a board which, as well as Jordan, Charlotte
and Clark, also includes Lucie Guibault, a professor of copyright
from the Netherlands, and Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in E-Commerce
Law and consultant to the World Intellectual Property
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
Why not
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. Therefore I'm going to listen to them,
and let them just get on with it. I
2009/12/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
There have been some independent reviews of ODbL.
snip
There is also Andrea Rossato who the Italian OSM community hired
independently to review the license.
I believe he said something like ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems.
Could someone from
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
No sense in wasting everyone's time if the OSMF members aren't going to
agree to it anyway?
I'm pretty sure he meant asking contributors before threatening to
remove their contributions.
It'll still be there. In perfect form for the fork which will
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently
26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in
ODbL licensed
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims
this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of
consultations?
How is insulting people going to help things?
___
talk
On Sunday 06 December 2009 02:25:16 Frederik Ramm wrote:
And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot
say whether it's good or bad:
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabank
licentie-versie-10
Basically he is saying that he thinks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Frederik Ramm schreef:
And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot
say whether it's good or bad:
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10
I can... before Arnoud
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently
26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:33 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
It isn't applicable to data in jurisdictions where data can't be
copyrighted. Part of the proposal of switching to the ODbL is to go
*beyond* copyright law by imposing an EULA
Yours c.
Steve
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:43, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims
this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of
consultations?
How is
Yours c.
Steve
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:55, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.
And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
being and not helping fence sitters one bit.
If you want a dictatorship on the matter say so, otherwise you or
others wanting the change
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Click through type agreements have already been deemed as
unenforceable,
Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the
legal list if you think it's too off-topic)? To my knowledge the
enforceability is spotty and unclear.
Trying
...
I believe he said something like ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems.
Easy example:
With CC-BY-SA this tile
http://c.tile.cloudmade.com/BC9A493B41014CAABB98F0471D759707/1/256/5/16/10.png?1253694005
is also CC-BY-SA.
With ODBL the tile could have a different license including a
On Dec 5, 2009, at 19:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.
And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
being and not helping fence sitters one bit.
Read the
2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Read the wikipedia entry on tit for tat, and iterated prisoners dilemma.
That's just it, I'm trying to avoid the conjecture in coming up with
an opinion on if this is a good thing or not for me and my
contributions or not.
ie am I wasting time contributing
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Click through type agreements have already been deemed as
unenforceable,
Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the
legal list if you think it's too
@openstreetmap.orgtalk@openstreetmap.org; Tom Hughest...@compton.nu
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
SteveC schrieb:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
With a gun at their head
301 - 400 di 475 matches
Mail list logo
