Hello, I will retract the troll bit as you seem actually to be "enthusiastic" but you seriously have to work on the perception that you give to people in the first place. Goodwill is something difficult enough to accrue in the first place. However, I will not retract the fact that I consider that you are a bit disingenuous in your behaviour.
Emilie Laffray On 29 May 2012 11:48, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen < g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote: > Emilie,**** > > ** ** > > I defend 2 legal interests:**** > > ** ** > > Mine : I invested time work and money, that I co-licensed under CC-by-SA > to the previous OSM**** > > OSM: by keeping the OSM database clean of tainted data**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > If you call that trolling ……**** > > Sometimes I think that people are called trolls because they defend**** > > statements other do not agree with.**** > > ** ** > > Sorry Emilie, it’s a pity if that creates some loss of data,**** > > but you should take it like a man, and accept the consequences**** > > of the route OSM took. Put the liability on those who are**** > > responsible for that !**** > > ** ** > > Gert**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *Van:* Emilie Laffray [mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com] > *Verzonden:* Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19 PM > *Aan:* ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen > *CC:* Thomas Davie; talk@openstreetmap.org > > *Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!**** > > ** ** > > Hello,**** > > ** ** > > First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private > conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court.**** > > That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is > kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I > agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do > but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous.**** > > FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. > I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all > the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you > the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other > mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the > project so just leave it. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data > to be deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes > I am seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation > due to the behaviour of some members of FOSM).**** > > If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a > legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL > is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for > OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several > legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it > seriously look like it has some legs.**** > > If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make > sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the > data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at > best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the > foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the > foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that > at some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork.** > ** > > You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From > the way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only > a few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that > OSM didn't go their way. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards > the choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the > work of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive.**** > > ** ** > > In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly. > Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it > is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge.**** > > ** ** > > Emilie Laffray**** > > On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen < > g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote:**** > > I did not give you permission to share > a private conversation on the list. > > That is also about copyrights, Davie.**** >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
