On 19 July 2010 23:38, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead > with what is on the table now.
Which many people cannot legally agree to, even if we do agree with the ODBL. It seems to be a mad dash to force people down this path, and I'm sure there will be plenty of data issues over looked, so much for the 'whiter than white' approach to copyright, this whole issue sticks of hypocrisy. To re-iterate, anyone that has vectorised anything from Nearmap imagery cannot agree to the new CTs because you would be in breach of Nearmap terms for the exact reason you point out, the data could be relicensed under a non-SA license. > I am not suggesting to reject ODbL. I am suggesting to accept the > Contributor Terms exactly as they have been produced by the time and effort > you mention. As I've written several times, I can't agree to the new CT so as a direct result I can't agree to ODBL, along with many other people in Australia. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
