Hi all -
I'm doing an animation for a promotional corporate video, including an animated
3D model of Sydney, which I'd like to overlay with the OSM map of Sydney.
Presumably this is ok as long as I include the appropriate accreditation in the
credits - could someone please clarify for me?
The
Why we need a SA for all merged Data?
I understand ODbL like this: If you Merge some Data with OSM Data and
create something (e.g. a map) from that you have to publish the merged
data under ODbL(or compatible).
so why we need that?
With SA we intend that no one can fork OSM under a restricti
On 8 August 2010 18:43, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
>> again says "we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline".
>
> The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as accurate as t
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
> again says "we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline".
The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as accurate as the
imported one.
__
On 8 August 2010 18:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again
> says "we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline".
I'm starting to think 80n was right, if you were really serious about
wanting a PD fork you would fork it
Liz,
On 08/08/2010 10:21 AM, Liz wrote:
You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian
coastline.
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
again says "we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline".
Honestly, I will.
Bye
Fre
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Imports are bad enough in the effect they have on the surveying
> community.
You are welcome to join a 48,000 km kayak trip to survey the Australian
coastline.
However
If there is mapper time to spare , the Phillipines coastline needs love first.
___
Hi,
On 08/08/2010 09:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelson wrote:
copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and
CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to
get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the
p
Russ,
On 08/08/2010 06:34 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Here are the
questions we arrived at (thanks to Skud aka Kirrily Robert for taking
notes):
Good observations. Might be worth to discuss with folks at
odc-disc...@lists.okfn.org as well. I'll forward your post there for
people to be aware of yo
On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelson wrote:
> copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and
> CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to
> get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the
> people who think a reciprocal license solve
SteveC writes:
> As in, why is the PD camp so loud here?
First and foremost, because we believe that all the licensing
kerfluffle will frighten people away from using the map. Because we
all want a map that will actually be USED by the most people possible.
Because we aren't afraid of forks (peo
11 matches
Mail list logo
