license is federal, cities must modify it to apply to municipal, thus creating new license
On Jan 28, 2018 1:52 PM, "Jonathan Brown" <[email protected]> wrote: > If we have a description of the scope of the work involved in updating the > BC2020 OD tables, I don’t mind trying to find some senior students who > could be trained to take on this task for locations in Ontario. It would be > a very small start, of course. Also, can someone explain to me the > licensing issue? How do datasets released under the open government license > not meet the legal requirements of the OSM license? > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > *From: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Sunday, January 28, 2018 7:00 AM > *To: *[email protected] > *Subject: *Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 16 > > > > Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to > > [email protected] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [email protected] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [email protected] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. weeklyOSM #392 2018-01-16-2018-01-22 (weeklyteam) > > 2. Re: BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status > > (OSM Volunteer stevea) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 08:21:47 -0800 (PST) > > From: weeklyteam <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #392 2018-01-16-2018-01-22 > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 392, > > is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all > things happening in the openstreetmap world: > > > > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9884/ > > > > Enjoy! > > > > weeklyOSM? > > who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages > > where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently- > produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:41:23 -0800 > > From: OSM Volunteer stevea <[email protected]> > > To: "Stewart C. Russell" <[email protected]>, talk-ca > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020 OD_tables wiki and project status > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > On Jan 26, 2018, at 8:12 PM, Stewart C. Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2018-01-26 09:56 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > > >> What I did was to "back-populate" the list of "approved" (by whom? > when? how did these get here?) list of Canadian cities from > > >> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities into > OSM's BC2020 wiki. > > > > > > These are very old and pre-date the formal import documentation process. > > > The Toronto permission e-mail from 2011 or so amounted to not much more > > > than “Sure ;-)” [smiley included in original]. I don't think the process > > > would pass muster now. > > > > OK, so "correct" is to immediately remove from https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/ > Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities EVERY SINGLE CITY (except Ottawa). > If it was an error to list them then, (that's what I read above) it is an > error to list them now. Anyone with an OSM wiki account can do this — and > now, someone should, preferably someone in Canada with a sense of ownership > that this process of entering additional Canadian cities into Contributors > went awry. This could be a majority of people reading this post: any > takers? > > > > > Unfortunately, none of us are lawyers, the OSMF's lawyers are very busy > > > and naturally conservative, and slogging through licence work (and > > > myriad outdated wiki pages) is no fun for anyone, least of all > volunteers. > > > > Some of us are lawyers (I'm not), though any OSM volunteer should strive > to "do the right things," especially in matters related to "proper > licensing." Proper OD licensing is one task which has emerged as an > "obstacle" (so documented in WikiProject BC2020) from the desire to see > continuing project forward momentum. > > > > To go forward, if wiki pages are outdated (and Stewart says above that > they are), well, please update outdated wiki pages. You don't have to be a > lawyer to do that, especially as the data are known to be outdated or > wrong. "Slogging through license work," partly DOES require being a lawyer > (at least within OSM's LWG) and for the project to go forward, yes, that is > a longer-term task to complete. (I hesitate to say "slog," though it may > be one). > > > > I offer to "change from green to red" wiki table status for all cities > (except Ottawa), although I'd also like to see Contributors be updated > (with only Ottawa) as I suggest. Teamwork, anybody? Simply to keep our > project-wide communication current? It's neither difficult nor > time-consuming and shares present status with "the rest of us." > > > > We may not have brilliant ignition here, but at least the embers are > orange and warm. Though, after many lungfuls by me, I'm getting a bit > dizzy stoking these fires. > > > > SteveA > > California > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-ca mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 119, Issue 16 > > **************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
