Hi, I linked this thread to Rufus Pollock and the opendatacommons website is now up again. The OKFN chat is here https://gitter.im/okfn/chat
Regards, Stefano 2018-04-08 14:18 GMT+02:00 James <[email protected]>: > Just because you are not the curator of the license doesnt mean you cant > display the full legal text somewhere else...The text wont change. GPL, > LGPL, BSD, etc projects usually distribute their software with a license > text file with the full legal text and dont depend on 1 single point of > failure > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 8:13 AM Simon Poole, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Am 08.04.2018 um 13:30 schrieb James: >> >> why not host it on the osmf website? >> >> >> Because we don't own the domain (which is what most references to the >> actual text use) and are not the curators of the licence (aka we could in >> principle simply covertly change the text of the license, having a third >> party publish the text is in principle a good idea for such reasons). >> >> Simon >> >> PS: that doesn't mean that having our own clean copy as a backup wouldn't >> be a good idea, but IMHO the pointer to archive.org is probably the best >> of all bad solutions right now. >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 5:46 AM Simon Poole, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Currently I'm pointing to http://web.archive.org/web/ >>> 20180317184051/https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ however as >>> the opendatacommons.org links are all over the place that isn't really >>> a solution. OKI seems to be aware of the issue, but that is about all what >>> we know (they seem to be intending to move the site to a static website, >>> but there doesn't seem to be a time line or anything available that would >>> indicate if that will happen soon or in a decade). >>> >>> I'm sure waving some $ bills in the direction of OKI/Viderum would get >>> it fixed pronto, but it is obviously an undesirable situation that we are >>> depending on a third party that doesn't seem to be interested to provide a >>> stable link to our licence terms. >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> Am 04.04.2018 um 11:27 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >>> >>> >>> >>> 2018-04-04 10:23 GMT+02:00 Javier Sánchez Portero <[email protected]> >>> : >>> >>>> Hello >>>> >>>> My name is Javier Sánchez, from Spain. >>>> >>>> The link to the ODbL 1.0 License [1] is not available since January. >>>> This is an annoyance if trying to ask for explicit permission to any data >>>> source. Is there any alternative reference? Should not be fine that OSMF >>>> provide a copy of the text in their site while opendatacommons.org is >>>> down? >>>> >>>> [1] https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ >>>> >>>> Regards, Javier >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree we should host our own copy of the license. >>> >>> If you need the license text urgently, you can find it here in the >>> Internet Archive (not a general solution obviously): >>> https://web.archive.org/web/20180316015654/https:// >>> opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ >>> >>> This is a snapshot from yesterday, so somehow they got through, but I >>> confirm I didn't ge the page either, Error 522. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> osmf-talk mailing >>> [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> talk mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
