Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
You would have had more luck sticking to one alias (Jane Smith), now you're just making it obvious as to your goals. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that some are now stooping to questionable tactics, but it just re-enforces the fact that I no longer have any faith in those that are pushing for license changes are doing so for the good of the project. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] 80m Manifesto
The deadline of 1 September is gone. The LWG has not moved with the new license. I asked you to have the guts to call a vote, you lilly livered slime monkeys http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003934.html You are dragging the project down. Now is the time for 80m. 80m will take over OSM when you give up kontrol and build the continuity OSM. Continuity. OSM. With CCBYSA as our base, as all contributors want and need. 80m calls on the LWG and the OSMF to step aside and allow all control to pass to 80m. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie > Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz: > >> I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, > >> not the other way around. > > > > At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. > > Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the > > discussion over the LINZ import. > > Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, > just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are > saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL > relicensing. > That is the argument of the Rich. That they contribut money when we the people contribut our flesh and bones to the map! Sureley someone who contribtues more than another is doing from their goodwill and all contributions are equal in reality? We need to rise up and take the reins of Power. As 80n has foretold. > > -- > Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie > Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E > > Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith wrote: > John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an > Apostle of the 'new license'. I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be content with the license... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wikipedia on Google Map Maker
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Anthony wrote: > [quote] > The project is similar to OpenStreetMap (OSM), but unlike OSM which > provides its map data under a Creative Commons license, Google obtains > "... a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and > non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, > publicly perform, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative > works of the User Submission" > [/quote] > > LOL. > But isn't this what OSM is becoming?? > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:12 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem. > > But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true > answer. > Yes, the True Answer as John and I know. Let's be true and tlk of honestness. John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an Apostle of the 'new license'. Jane Smith ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem. But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true answer. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Hi,
80n wrote:
An ODbL fork would not have same rights to the data as OSMF would have.
It would be a somewhat asymmetrical fork. You cannot fork the substance
of the contributor terms.
True, but I believe this discussion was about whether you can fork the
future ODbL OSM without having to ask OSMF, and the answer is yes.
If the community chooses to exercise clause 3 of the contributor terms
and change the license from ODbL to something else, that something else
must be "free and open". It is probably open to interpretation whether
"free and open" implies "freely forkable" but I have yet to see a
license that is free and open but does not allow forks,
What you can *not* do is fork the project, let yourself and two friends
be the "community" in the new fork and then decide to relicense to
public domain ("but two thirds of the community have agreed, we're only
using clause 3 of the contributor terms!").
I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Am 29.08.2010 11:10, schrieb jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > yes, i think i see what you are saying: > the license will be the only protection against third party abuse. > I think that copyleft is good enough. I believe our user base and fast update times are what really protects us against abuse. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 31 August 2010 16:00, Robert Kaiser wrote: > > No, but it is signing a paper that states exactly which information (all > your OSM data? all your GNU code?) is handed over to a specific entity (the > OSMF? the FSF?) in terms of copyright entirely and it's up to that entity to > license it as they please - possible with certain restrictions (like always > making it available with a free and open license, as the CT states). If you don't care about what someone does with your copyright work, then you can certainly assign the copyright (or database right or whatever) to that someone without a great deal of difficulty. You can also assign some or all of what you have created (or in many jurisdictions and with some more careful restrictions, what you will create). If you want to restrict what the person you assign to does with the copyright, then either you want to avoid assigning and retain ownership - a suitably drafted exclusive licence could have that effect in England and Wales, or you want Isome kind of reversion on condition subsequent could also work, though it would be more complicated. Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to certain exceptions. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 31 August 2010 17:00, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Maarten Deen schrieb: >> >> On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote: >>> >>> It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for >>> projects of non-profit foundations. >> >> Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper. > > No, but it is signing a paper that states exactly which information (all > your OSM data? all your GNU code?) is handed over to a specific entity (the > OSMF? the FSF?) in terms of copyright entirely and it's up to that entity to > license it as they please - possible with certain restrictions (like always > making it available with a free and open license, as the CT states). > > Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright > assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of > upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and "and later" clause). CC-By-SA 2 does have this kind of provision (1.0 didn't), by stating which licenses it is comptaible with, unfortunately it is not helpful in this case because CC-By-SA seems to have been a wrong choice from the start. The ODbL with it's upgrade clause should be better. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a copyright > assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic possibility of > upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and "and later" clause). Copyright assignment could never work on a project with 100,000 contributors. CC-BY-SA 2.0 does have an "and later" clause. And ODbL is not in the "same spirit" as CC-BY-SA, any more than LGPL is in the "same spirit" as GFDL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 08/31/2010 03:56 PM, Anthony wrote: I'm not sure that Marxist views on copyright are necessarily trolling, however capitalized, but they are a bit off topic for a list about bourgeois law. ;-) The fact that I chose to quote that line and not any of the others was my way of ignoring and not feeding the troll. Oh I'm sorry, I missed the context (I'm only on legal talk). Having had a look at osm-discuss I now see what you mean. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 08/31/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote: So that's all allowed? Okay then. Let the games begin. I can create a few extra gmail accounts to troll the list with too. I think it's more that we should ignore (people who we think are) obvious trolls. I'm not sure that Marxist views on copyright are necessarily trolling, however capitalized, but they are a bit off topic for a list about bourgeois law. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence > 'Jane Smith' might have committed that would cause you to want her to be > banned. She is clearly posting under a fake name: so are at least two other > people here. She is posting HTML messages and can't quote properly: same > applies to at least one other person here. She is trolling: and yes, at > least one other person here has publicly vowed (elsewhere) that they will > continue to be deliberately "disruptive" on the OSM lists. So that's all allowed? Okay then. Let the games begin. I can create a few extra gmail accounts to troll the list with too. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie : > Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony: >> What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq >> has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has >> copyright. > > Iran's copyright protects only works by Iranians. > > Besides, what I think he meant is, that collecting facts (like geodata) > doesn't usually fall under the protection of copyright. Collecting facts never falls under the protection of copyright. The expression of facts usually does, though. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Using OSM material for our online tool
Ole Brandenburg wrote: > I would be thankful if someone can point me in the right direction. > We plan to use the OSM API for our map tool (at stepmap.de). > We currently have a list of roughly 1,500 pre-defined maps and > a zoom-feature that enables users to create their own map/region. > The OSM maps would be a great addition because of the detailed > city and regional data. We would like to enable our users to > access part of the OSM material and therefore plan to make use > of the OSM API. Great that you're thinking of using OSM data. I would, however, counsel you very strongly to investigate alternatives to the API. OpenStreetMap aims to create free geographic data and make it available for others to use. But we are a non-profit, volunteer-funded organisation and can't maintain free, unlimited server resources for everyone. Our servers, including the API, are principally provided for the benefit of those editing the data. Any other usage may be restricted or banned entirely. API services may be modified or withdrawn with minimal notice. Instead, you are encouraged to download a dump of our data, and host it yourself on your own servers (whether physical or something such as an Amazon EC2 instance). If this isn't convenient, you may like to engage a third-party company to provide this service for you. Geofabrik and CloudMade are two well-known companies in this field. The full data dump can be downloaded from http://planet.openstreetmap.org/ . Smaller excerpts for particular countries and regions are available from other sites (e.g. geofabrik.de). The formal Terms of Use for the API are linked from http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Fwd-Using-OSM-material-for-our-online-tool-tp5481984p5482623.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Using OSM material for our online tool
2010/8/31 Jonathan Bennett : > Is there anything we need to discuss before going ahead? Any official > guidelines that we need to consider? you might consider using the XAPI http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Xapi cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 30 August 2010 12:04, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as >> said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and >> mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks > > Also note the number of successful Wikipedia forks. > > The situation around licence changes is a big limitation of existing > open licences. Presumably future licences will include some kind of > meta-licence, where you both licence your contributions under the > current licence, and explicitly allow some future mechanism to > relicence them. Going back and asking contributors for permission is > never, ever going to be practical. > Yes, this is the intent of the section 3 of the Contributor Terms. It allows a mechanism for the community to adopt a new license in the future. It is the main point of contension with some of the imported dataset. See point 6 of the Contributor Terms summary http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary or section 3 of the full legalese CTs. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 31.08.2010 12:56, schrieb Liz: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: >> Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz: I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, not the other way around. >>> >>> At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. >>> Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the >>> discussion over the LINZ import. >> >> Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, >> just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are >> saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL >> relicensing. > > No, I am not saying that, and I can't see where you got that impression. > I am looking back at evidence for an import being discussed on this list, > advice offered, and it was thought that the new licence would make it easier. > Now that the evidence is that the new licence will not make it easier and the > contributor terms will make it impossible, why are some people complaining > about imports getting in the road of the new licence? To clarify: I complain about imports generally, because in my experience they harm the community, not just because of the relicensing. I'm very much in favor of manual mapping, because that creates some sort of connectedness of the mapper with "their" map. The only solution I see with (now?) incompatible imports is to try and renegotiate with the donors, preferably to have the data released into the Public Domain, like *the* import we did was from the start (TIGER). Besides, as others have already pointed out, we remove data that doesn't fit our license all the time, where should we draw the line? how much mapper effort may be wasted in order to have somewhat of a legally sound status for the future of the project as a whole? Is it even valid to risk the future status of the work of hundreds of thousands of contributors for the work of some 1000 users, which are, after all, less than half a percent of our userbase? It's a hard question, and I'm not sure I can answer it. All I can say is what I would like to see, and that would be a free and open map data collection of the world. Preferably PD, but SA-ish is also acceptable (again: for me). -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 30 August 2010 10:36, Chris Browet wrote: > As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM > data without permissions, and it is thus not truly "open": > - with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork > their data (or is only attribution needed? To whom then? The individual > contributors?) > - with ODbL, you'd have to ask OSMF, which will be the "owner" of the data. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > Both CC-BY-SA and ODbL allow forking without needing to ask for permission. The ability to fork an ODbL dataset was a specific question the LWG asked legal council. Legal council answered in the affirmative that anyone can fork an ODbL licensed dataset. Relicensing a CC-BY-SA, ODbL or GPL etc license project would require asking each of the contributors for permission (or replacing their contribution). Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: > Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz: > >> I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, > >> not the other way around. > > > > At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. > > Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the > > discussion over the LINZ import. > > Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, > just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are > saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL > relicensing. No, I am not saying that, and I can't see where you got that impression. I am looking back at evidence for an import being discussed on this list, advice offered, and it was thought that the new licence would make it easier. Now that the evidence is that the new licence will not make it easier and the contributor terms will make it impossible, why are some people complaining about imports getting in the road of the new licence? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie : > Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, > just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are > saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL > relicensing. At this stage contributors aren't being asked what they want, we're being told what we should do. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz: >> I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, >> not the other way around. > > At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. > Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the > discussion over the LINZ import. Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many, just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL relicensing. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: > >> data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will > >> be re-mapped, probably within less than a year. > > > > > > > > I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data > > sources, and so far no one is offering to come to australia and map > > the regional and rural areas that every keeps claiming will be so easy > > to get re-mapped... > > I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, > not the other way around. At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence. Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the discussion over the LINZ import. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers wrote: >> You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court >> cases that demonstrate that it isn't. > > What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq > has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has > copyright. Iran's copyright protects only works by Iranians. Besides, what I think he meant is, that collecting facts (like geodata) doesn't usually fall under the protection of copyright. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Am 30.08.2010 13:43, schrieb John Smith: > 2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie : >> data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will >> be re-mapped, probably within less than a year. > > I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data > sources, and so far no one is offering to come to australia and map > the regional and rural areas that every keeps claiming will be so easy > to get re-mapped... I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license, not the other way around. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Using OSM material for our online tool
Forwarding to the developer and legal-talk lists. Original Message Subject:Using OSM material for our online tool Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:54:38 +0200 From: Ole Brandenburg To: CC: 'Thomas Gottfried' , To whom it may concern, I would be thankful if someone can point me in the right direction. We plan to use the OSM API for our map tool (at stepmap.de). We currently have a list of roughly 1,500 pre-defined maps and a zoom-feature that enables users to create their own map/region. The OSM maps would be a great addition because of the detailed city and regional data. We would like to enable our users to access part of the OSM material and therefore plan to make use of the OSM API. Of course, we will respect the CC license and make sure that the copyrights, etc. are upheld. The technical part is pretty straight forward but I was wondering if there are any additional legal/copyright issues. Is there anything we need to discuss before going ahead? Any official guidelines that we need to consider? Thanks for your help. Best regards Ole Brandenburg Managing Director StepMap GmbH ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:41:16AM +, Jane Smith wrote: > copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of > Production. > > We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is > what we workers should control. No copyright was the true reason for Germanys rapid industrial expansion: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html A small quote: "German authors during this period wrote ceaselessly. Around 14,000 new publications appeared in a single year in 1843. Measured against population numbers at the time, this reaches nearly today's level. And although novels were published as well, the majority of the works were academic papers. The situation in England was very different. "For the period of the Enlightenment and bourgeois emancipation, we see deplorable progress in Great Britain," Höffner states. Equally Developed Industrial Nation Indeed, only 1,000 new works appeared annually in England at that time -- 10 times fewer than in Germany -- and this was not without consequences. Höffner believes it was the chronically weak book market that caused England, the colonial power, to fritter away its head start within the span of a century, while the underdeveloped agrarian state of Germany caught up rapidly, becoming an equally developed industrial nation by 1900." Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
