Andrzej,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
1) A creates road; B edits road; C edits road.
2) A creates road; B deletes road; C undeletes road.
Well, I can kind of see a problem here (and am not in the states now
:-) ). In both situations the final version is a derived work of
version A or B, or
On 13 May 2010 13:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Andrzej,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
1) A creates road; B edits road; C edits road.
2) A creates road; B deletes road; C undeletes road.
Well, I can kind of see a problem here (and am not in the states now
:-) ). In both
Hi,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying -- I assumed user C is a new user,
registered after the recent change, and B an old user. So by
uploading any change, user C confirms that they hold the copyright to
the work and transfer all rights to OSMF. But it's obvious they
On 13 May 2010 14:18, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying -- I assumed user C is a new user,
registered after the recent change, and B an old user. So by
uploading any change, user C confirms that they hold the copyright to
It's pretty bonkers. Anyone is welcome to join the LWG call each week or read
the minutes, and be as involved as you like.
License changes will always throw up people who don't like it, and the LWG has
been going through peoples legitimate and illegitimate concerns for two years I
think it's
On May 11, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Chris Hunter wrote:
Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like
the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have
major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled,
and feel
the LWG
has been going through peoples legitimate and illegitimate concerns for
two
years I think it's been now. We've had lawyers checking everything at
every
step of the way.
I personally just want to say thank you to the license working group for
taking on the thankless job of
On 5/12/10 10:19 AM, SteveC wrote:
It's pretty bonkers. Anyone is welcome to join the LWG call each week or read
the minutes, and be as involved as you like.
License changes will always throw up people who don't like it, and the LWG
has been going through peoples legitimate and illegitimate
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
I am being careful to only delete objects that have not been
touched since I created them - roads, portions of the TN River,
etc... Please respect my wishes and do not undelete these objects.
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
What if a new contributor reverts it? Would the revert then be
considered ODBL?
A revert is an edit like any other.
What does that mean?
It means that the legal situation in the following two cases is exactly
the same:
1) A creates road; B edits
On May 12, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
I am being careful to only delete objects that have not been
touched since I created them - roads, portions of the TN River,
etc... Please respect
On 13 May 2010 02:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
What if a new contributor reverts it? Would the revert then be
considered ODBL?
A revert is an edit like any other.
What does that mean?
It means that the legal situation in the following
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 01:39 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Terribly thought out process. Terrible idea in the first place.
IMHO the terrible idea was to start out with CC-BY-SA in the first
place; had we simply been PD all along, nobody would have made a fuss
and we could have saved
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
this change is pretty
much necessary for OSM to achieve its goals. my new employer runs all
this stuff through their lawyers; they would probably not approve the
CCBYSA and probably would approve the new license, as
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote:
Some very smart lawyers at very big companies in the US
and in law schools also based on what i read on web
claim that PD doesn't really exist,
as Congress has mangled our laws, that seems to be the state here now:
Copyright
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:20 -0400, Chris Hunter wrote:
I have major philosophical issues
with the way the license change is
being handled, and feel that I can
no longer participate in the OSM
project.
I honestly haven't paid much attention to it. I figured it was pretty
messy, but legally
Chris, my goal in participating in OpenStreetMap was and still is to help
build a free and open map of the world. The license change does nothing to
alter that goal. I'm sorry you feel the way that you do. I encourage
everyone to continue to contribute to this great project.
Cheers,
Peter.
chris wrote:
Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like
the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have
major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled,
and feel that I can no longer participate in the
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Paul Fox p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us wrote:
chris wrote:
Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks
like
the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I
have
major philosophical issues with the way the
katie wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Paul Fox p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us wrote:
can someone lend a list-skimmer a clue? i see nothing but
cc-by-sa on the map and on the wiki.
The change noted here is that people creating new accounts need to agree to
dual license their
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Chris Hunter chunter...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like
the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have
major philosophical issues with the way the license change is
21 matches
Mail list logo
