Re: [OSM-talk] iPad app

[Zsombor Szabó]

Steve,

OpenMaps for iOS has already some great tag editing and node creating
features, but, as hinted in some of our support responses to our users, we
are working on a full-featured OSM editor. I can't tell a deadline yet when
it will be available, but soon. The best part: it will be free.

Best regards,
Zsombor Szabo
IZE, Ltd.

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 21:30, SteveC  wrote:

> I keep thinking an editing app for the 3G / wifi iPad would be awesome.
> It's always on the network, GPS and compass are built in.
>
> It would be a sweet surveying device, but would have to be super fault
> tolerant in doing things like waiting for the network.
>
> Steve
>
> stevecoast.com
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch for Newbies

[Steve Bennett]

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:55 PM, NopMap  wrote:
> - Why don't we disable that Live edit feature for good? I vaguely remember
> the question has been raised before, but I just can't think of any use case
> where I' need to mess up the data directly with no undo.

I only ever use the Live Edit mode. I don't trust my browser not to
crash, or my internet connection not to fail, between the time I make
the edit and the time I push save. Since there is no way to save data
locally, using the non-live mode makes you very vulnerable to data
loss.

I consider Live Edit mode to be much less error-prone, and thus less
harmful, than offline mode.

I note someone below saying Potlatch 2 will only have the offline
mode. Ugh. That's a real pity.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Chris Browet  wrote:
> But every opinions should have a place to voice themselves, shouldn't they?

No. Not all opinions are helpful. And certainly, sheer volume of
opinions is unhelpful.


> If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be?
> Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and
> moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating "Talk", whose topic is
> not obvious?
>
> Then people who don't want the noise can just turn it off, while leaving a
> place of "free speech", and topic-focused lists would be sane...

If anything, I would do the opposite: tightly moderate Talk as a
community forum where issues of all nature can be discussed, if done
so constructively and succinctly. Individual specialist lists could be
left unmoderated. Since the numbers of subscribers are lower, they can
form and enforce their own standards more easily.

Btw, once more, this notion of "those who don't want the spam don't
have to read it" is just plain wrong. The spam overwhelms the valuable
discussion, meaning everyone suffers. It's not a question of "if you
don't like the rain, don't stand in it".

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Ben Last  wrote:
> Finally, as ever, I want to make it clear that it's not our place as a
> company to try and direct or influence the direction of OSM.  That's for the
> community and OSMF to debate and decide.

I disagree. NearMap is part of the community, as a source of imagery,
as a consumer of OSM maps, and as the developer of a (forthcoming?)
editor. NearMap's voice counts for a lot more than many of the squeaky
wheels on this list. Not only that, but NearMap represents *here and n
ow* issues around the licenses, rather than potential future issues,
so it's doubly welcome. IMHO.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Michael Kugelmann]

Eugene Alvin Villar schrieb:
If you must fork, fork the data (planet.osm), not the user data. I 
disagree with having my credentials being carried over to a separate 
project that I would not want to be involved in.

+1

BTW: @Felix Hartmann
using words like

so fuck off.
shows that you don't have arguments. So step back - defamation is 
alsways a sign of weakness. Learn a good conduct before you continues 
with the discussion.



Best regards,
Michael.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

[Michael Kugelmann]

Chris Browet wrote:
The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the 
project also have commercial interests in the OSM data also make me 
nervous and doubtful.
looking at Frederik this statement sounds offending to me! HINT: I don't 
want to comment on the other persons (SteveC, Richard) simpley as I'm 
not in contact with them that much.
@Chris: did you ever check what Frederik or to be more precise the 
Geofabrik (= Frederik + Jochen) is offering to the community? If you 
would have had, you would not give a statement like that:
* look at the talk Frederik gave at the SOTM 2009 (how to earn money 
with OSM) where he requests a fair (!) partnership from "commercial 
companies"

* they offer processing and free download of data (download.geofabrik.de)
* they offer an amount of tools developed by themselves and hosted at 
their servers (tools.geofabrik.de) who really help the community
* they generated and printed flyers for the community in Germany ans 
send them out for free (!)
* they generated and printed large maps (e.g. A0 size) for the community 
for use e.g. at conferences in Germany
* they provided sollutions e.g. for imports of data provided by some 
communities in Germany
* they are helpfull and activeley contribute to the project (e.g. 
Frederik in the Data Working Group)
* they give a lot of talks e.g. at trade shows / conferences to attract 
to the project
Of cause they are not sainty [1] but they are more than fair: they could 
give much less back to the community but they don't do as they are a 
real "open" company from "open source persons". I would be happy if we 
would have more people like Frederik and Jochen within the project!


But maybe the whole discussion should go to "legal talk".


Best regards,
Michael.

add [1]: who is sainty? I don't think anybody including myself and you 
is this.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue

[SomeoneElse]

 On 22/08/2010 21:42, Steve Chilton wrote:

My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief.
The power on/off button has decided to not function at all.
Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from 
Amazon).
Possibly, but I think that it should be the retailer's problem in the 
first instance (sale of goods act and all that)?

Anyone had this issue with theirs?


No, but the pointer stick on my first one failed after about 11 months 
fairly intensive use.



Anyone with good (or bad) experiences of going to Garmin Europe with issues 
such as this?
Anyone with any advice to cheer me up basically?!!
It went back to to the shop I bought it from*, they leant me a spare, 
sent mine to Garmin got another back within 2-3 weeks, and I've been 
using that since.  Let's just say that they seemed "familiar with the 
Garmin returns process", but there were no quibbles from either them or 
Garmin.  It just cost me the petrol.


Cheers,
Andy

* Hitch'n'Hike in Bamford.  I'm not on commission, but it's worth 
mentioning good service as well as bad...


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[Liz]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> 2. Much more stringent requirements are put on lots of projects
> 
> You may have heard of the GNU project. Are you aware that all
> contributors to GNU project must sign over not just license
> agreements, but copyright assignments?
> 
> Just this week a new project came along called OpenStack, and all
> contributors must sign a license agreement to the central body.
> 
> This is normal and there are very good reasons these organizations do
> what they do.

However, that its the original agreement which all of these contributors 
signed up using.
Other projects have different ways of handling the copyright issues. 

Both schemes are *normal* but changing between them is not.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Norbert Hoffmann]

Felix Hartmann wrote:

>As I stated, my goal is to have OSM to continue under CCBYSA2.0

As I see it CCBYSA is not a goal but a tool. Before asking us to work with
- and to give our new data to - your project, it would be fair to tell us
what your real goals are. Then ask some layers if CCBYSA is the right tool
to achieve this goals.

Norbert


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Hot to build a marine chart for garmin devices?

[Christian Wagner]

Around January someone, I think it was Mark Burton, built a Garmin map
for the Openseamap guys. It covered the southern half of the Baltic Sea.
It had different symbol styles for all the seamarks (buoys etc.), a nice
white background for the sea and a light brown background for the land
areas. To me this map was perfect.

Unfortunately this map generated back then was the only one that used
this style. No updates, no documentation of how to built something like
that yourself- nothing.

Unfortunately the documentation of the mkgmap programm in the wiki is
far from useable to a newbie. All this about style files, options like
--generate-sea:multipolygon or --generate-sea:no mp - I don't even know
what all this is. Could anybody please point me in the right direction?
Is there a proper documentation of the files that I have overlooked?
The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mkgmap/help/usage seems
useless to someone who wants to render seamarks and have a white sea
polygon with brown land.

Let's say I downloades the OSM file of the area and I downloades mkgmap-
how would one proceed?

Thank you very much in advance and forgive my ignorance if I missed the
obvious,
Christian Wagner


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue

[Graham Jones]

Steve,
My old eTrex Legend packed in completely and Garmin fixed it ok under the
guarantee - pretty quick turn around from what I remember.

The Zoom out button is playing up on my newer one and I am trying to decide
what to do about it because it is well out of guarantee now - I may have to
attempt surgery...

If it is only a week old and you bought it from Amazon, I would just contact
them - i would expect them to exchange it for you rather than getting it
repaired.

Graham.

On 22 August 2010 21:42, Steve Chilton  wrote:

> My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief.
> The power on/off button has decided to not function at all.
> Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased
> from Amazon).
> Anyone had this issue with theirs?
> Anyone with good (or bad) experiences of going to Garmin Europe with issues
> such as this?
> Anyone with any advice to cheer me up basically?!!
>
> Cheers
> STEVE
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Dr. Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK
email: grahamjones...@gmail.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue

[Steve Chilton]

My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief.
The power on/off button has decided to not function at all.
Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from 
Amazon).
Anyone had this issue with theirs?
Anyone with good (or bad) experiences of going to Garmin Europe with issues 
such as this?
Anyone with any advice to cheer me up basically?!!

Cheers
STEVE

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue

[Shaun McDonald]

http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2008/11/21/replacement-garmin-etrex-bike-clip/
 may be relevant.

Shaun

On 22 Aug 2010, at 21:42, Steve Chilton wrote:

> My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief.
> The power on/off button has decided to not function at all.
> Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from 
> Amazon).
> Anyone had this issue with theirs?
> Anyone with good (or bad) experiences of going to Garmin Europe with issues 
> such as this?
> Anyone with any advice to cheer me up basically?!!
> 
> Cheers
> STEVE
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[80n]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Andrew Ayre  wrote:

> Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>
>  On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Felix Hartmann <
>> extremecar...@googlemail.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the
>>usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0
>>fork without new registration.
>>
>>
>> If you must fork, fork the data (planet.osm), not the user data. I
>> disagree with having my credentials being carried over to a separate project
>> that I would not want to be involved in.
>>
>
> When I signed up for an account with OSM I didn't realize that my account
> information was going into a database that was also CCBYSA.
>
> Although I accept that this probably was stated somewhere, I would prefer
> to not have my login information copied. Let me choose to create an account
> if I want to.
>
>
If there is a fork then no private account data will be shared with the
fork.  The only data that will be shared is the User ID and User Name both
of which are already public.

There will be a mechanism (oAuth or similar) which will enable users to
transition from the Steve Coast OSM to any OSM fork with about three mouse
clicks.  At no time will private data ever be shared between any OSM forks.

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Anthony]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Andrew Ayre  wrote:
> When I signed up for an account with OSM I didn't realize that my account
> information was going into a database that was also CCBYSA.

It wasn't, although arguably, the entire database (including
usernames, passwords, and email addresses) must be offered under
section 4.6 of the ODbL.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Andrew Ayre  wrote:

> When I signed up for an account with OSM I didn't realize that my account
> information was going into a database that was also CCBYSA.

It's not. This is just the dream of the forkers and then lots of
random commenters.

- Serge

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Andrew Ayre]

Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Felix Hartmann 
mailto:extremecar...@googlemail.com>> wrote:


This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the
usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0
fork without new registration.


If you must fork, fork the data (planet.osm), not the user data. I 
disagree with having my credentials being carried over to a separate 
project that I would not want to be involved in.


When I signed up for an account with OSM I didn't realize that my 
account information was going into a database that was also CCBYSA.


Although I accept that this probably was stated somewhere, I would 
prefer to not have my login information copied. Let me choose to create 
an account if I want to.


Andy

--
Andy
PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Anthony]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:13 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> I don't think making passwords publicly available is a good idea, but
> it might be a sign of good faith on OSM(F)'s behalf if it were to
> facilitate an easy method for people waiting to claim their
> account/edits on a forked database.

That would be OAuth.

http://sharedmap.org/auth/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3

[Łukasz Stelmach]

Peteris Krisjanis  writes:

> As I'm interested in keeping my data within OSM and find a common
> ground with rest of you, I'm delighted to see that requests to specify
> 'free and open license' in CT section 3 has been taken into
> account[1]. Huge thanks and sorry for any emotional storm it have
> caused.
>
> [1] http://www.abalakov.com/?p=56

It's great to read that. When will be the new terms available to accept
them? How much time has left to accept the terms anyway?

-- 
Miłego dnia,
Łukasz Stelmach


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Op 22-08-10 18:04, Renaud MICHEL schreef:
> Le dimanche 22 août 2010 à 16:58, Milo van der Linden a écrit :
>> - Changing from mysql to postgresql/postgis as the core database
> 
> This one has already been done during the API 0.6 switch, see
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/smaug
> 
> So this is actually a reason to fork for the pro-mysql camp ;-)

The database is still not 'spatial' as far as we are informed? But I ack
Milo's points. Distribution is what we need, and maybe even better if we
can do distributed content as well. Hence: data on different layers not
bothering eachother.


Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREKAAYFAkxxU3MACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn2HzACbB+sbsj53bnIjorx5XJO1KdH/
BfcAniDYUIItw/RzKu/5Rv7L7Ez0385r
=6QC7
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

[Chris Browet]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:21, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

>
> Chris Browet wrote[1]:
> > The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the
> > project also have commercial interests in the OSM data
>
> Wut?
>
> I don't have any commercial interest in OSM, at all. I'm a magazine editor.
>

Sorry Richard, wasn't sure (that was the reason of the question mark)
Point noted.

- Chris -
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[Robert Kaiser]

John F. Eldredge schrieb:

According to the summaries that have been published thus far, those who click 
"yes" are licensing data already entered not only under the current new 
license, but are agreeing in advance to any future licenses.  You won't have the right to 
choose not to license the data under those new licenses, even though it will take a 
two-thirds majority to select a new license.


That's right. By the way, this is very similar to what the GNU project 
requires, but they do it with a copyright assignment, so that the FSF 
can change the license at will, while the OSM CTs require 2/3 of the 
active mappers to agree to a license change, so those CTs are stricter 
than the GNU rules. Interesting, right?


Still, this once again is a topic for legal-talk, not the main talk list.

Robert Kaiser


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Robert Kaiser]

Anthony schrieb:

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Robert Kaiser  wrote:

Felix Hartmann schrieb:


Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future
without Odbl.


If you do that, please do it on your own servers, mailing lists, and
community, and with your own new project name, as a real fork of any project
should do.


Isn't the OSMF the one actually doing the fork, though?


They can't fork away from the current infrastructure, as they are 
providing it, AFAIK.


Robert Kaiser


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Renaud MICHEL]

Le dimanche 22 août 2010 à 16:58, Milo van der Linden a écrit :
> - Changing from mysql to postgresql/postgis as the core database

This one has already been done during the API 0.6 switch, see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/smaug

So this is actually a reason to fork for the pro-mysql camp ;-)

-- 
Renaud Michel

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Renaud MICHEL]

Le dimanche 22 août 2010 à 14:13, vous avez écrit :
> > If, after some though, I decide I prefer to work on a fork, then I will
> > create a new account there, possibly using the same user name if it is
> > still available, or a new one.
> 
> I don't think making passwords publicly available is a good idea,

Actually, I'm not very concerned about the password (I don't reuse 
passwords), but more about the email I used to create the account at the 
time, which is a more personal email, as it was (and still is) guaranteed 
not to be displayed publicly.

> but it might be a sign of good faith on OSM(F)'s behalf if it were to
> facilitate an easy method for people waiting to claim their
> account/edits on a forked database.

Actually, that would be more a sign that they are not trustworthy.


-- 
Renaud Michel

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

[Richard Fairhurst]

Chris Browet wrote[1]:
> The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the 
> project also have commercial interests in the OSM data 

Wut?

I don't have any commercial interest in OSM, at all. I'm a magazine editor.
We do have maps in our magazine but we (well, I) make them using Ordnance
Survey OpenData, SRTM, and tracings from the New Popular Edition sheets
which I bought, scanned and rectified at my own expense. OSM data is too
fiddly and too uneven to be of any use for small-scale mapping when there's
lovely, consistent Ordnance Survey data available instead.

cheers
Richard

[1] a week or so ago. I've been on holiday.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/NearMap-Community-Licence-and-OSM-Contributor-Terms-tp5439327p5449920.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Anthony]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Robert Kaiser  wrote:
> Felix Hartmann schrieb:
>>
>> Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future
>> without Odbl.
>
> If you do that, please do it on your own servers, mailing lists, and
> community, and with your own new project name, as a real fork of any project
> should do.

Isn't the OSMF the one actually doing the fork, though?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Moderation

[SteveC]

talk@ is not the place for acrimonious posts about the license like this

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/053323.html

Both sides have had their say in the "Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 
2.0continuation" thread.

Please, when responding to that thread now move to legal-talk@

Steve

stevecoast.com


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Milo van der Linden]

I am not against a fork,

but as Frederik already mentioned, there is no to debate about a fork and
spread anti-odbl propaganda. There are other good reasons to fork, for me
one of them is getting a more distributed database instead of everything in
a single farm on a single location.

I would not mind to discuss a fork, but I would prefer to see good arguments
as to the why (keeping the current license being one)

My 2 cents would be:

- Being able to set up a globally distributed database "farm"
- Changing from mysql to postgresql/postgis as the core database
- Opening up on how to set up the core open-geodata database and creating
your own node

I am aware that this will introduce new issues, but as long as we keep an
open discussion, not excluding any ideas and any group of people, it might
be of benefit to all
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 22 August 2010 13:08, Florian Heer  wrote:
> Felix Hartmann schrieb:
>>
>>  Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future
>> without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers as possible
>> to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want to contribute
>> under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and others to tell them that
>> if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will loose us and also be faced with
>> a fork.
>
> I think this is quite interesting: if you do not do as I want, YOU will be
> responsible. Isn't there a term for this? I think it's "blackmail"

Not at all.  There are (oversimplifying things) two sides in this
discussion, each side is telling the other side that they're wrong and
will harm the project if they continue.  If you're on one side you'll
see the other side's arguments as blackmail.  Same goes to Frederik,
the ODbL group is trying to convince people that ODbL is the way to go
and CC-By-SA is harmful, the CC-By-SA tries to convince them of the
contrary.  Both sides try to lobby the OSMF too.  Both sides would
prefer that the other side forks the project and they're left alone to
continue as OpenStreetMap.  If you don't express you opinion and try
to convince others, you've failed, let's not try to censor this
completely normal process of communication in a group project.

Cheers

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[John F. Eldredge]

According to the summaries that have been published thus far, those who click 
"yes" are licensing data already entered not only under the current new 
license, but are agreeing in advance to any future licenses.  You won't have 
the right to choose not to license the data under those new licenses, even 
though it will take a two-thirds majority to select a new license.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
>From  :mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com
Date  :Sun Aug 22 08:46:20 America/Chicago 2010


On 22/08/2010 14:13, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> My largest complaint is that, if you click "yes", you not only are
> agreeing to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in
> advance to any future license changes, without being able to know
> what those new license terms will be.  It is the equivalent to voting
> someone into office as "President for life".

This is complete nonsense. Any further change would require a 2/3
majority of active contributors (as well as agreement from OSMF members).

This is considerably higher than most democratic countries require for a
change of Government, which you might consider a significant event, and
the same as most organisations set for making constitutional changes.

It stops people like Felix Hartman attempting to hold the majority to
ransom by requiring a 100% vote and therefore effectively giving
everyone a veto, while at the same time recognising a simple majority is
not enough for more fundamental changes.

Are you saying you want a personal veto on any future change? Seems a
massively selfish attitude for a supposedly co-operative project.

I've yet to find an organisation whose members don't disagree on things,
but OSM does seem to have more than its fair share of people who set out
to disagree with anything anyone else says for the sake of it.

Democracy isn't about unanimity. It never can be because it is never
achievable.

David

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3

[Peteris Krisjanis]

Hi everyone!

As I'm interested in keeping my data within OSM and find a common
ground with rest of you, I'm delighted to see that requests to specify
'free and open license' in CT section 3 has been taken into
account[1]. Huge thanks and sorry for any emotional storm it have
caused.

[1] http://www.abalakov.com/?p=56

Cheers,
Peter.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Robert Kaiser]

Felix Hartmann schrieb:

Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future
without Odbl.


If you do that, please do it on your own servers, mailing lists, and 
community, and with your own new project name, as a real fork of any 
project should do.


Robert Kaiser


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[David Earl]

On 22/08/2010 14:13, John F. Eldredge wrote:

My largest complaint is that, if you click "yes", you not only are
agreeing to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in
advance to any future license changes, without being able to know
what those new license terms will be.  It is the equivalent to voting
someone into office as "President for life".


This is complete nonsense. Any further change would require a 2/3 
majority of active contributors (as well as agreement from OSMF members).


This is considerably higher than most democratic countries require for a 
change of Government, which you might consider a significant event, and 
the same as most organisations set for making constitutional changes.


It stops people like Felix Hartman attempting to hold the majority to 
ransom by requiring a 100% vote and therefore effectively giving 
everyone a veto, while at the same time recognising a simple majority is 
not enough for more fundamental changes.


Are you saying you want a personal veto on any future change? Seems a 
massively selfish attitude for a supposedly co-operative project.


I've yet to find an organisation whose members don't disagree on things, 
but OSM does seem to have more than its fair share of people who set out 
to disagree with anything anyone else says for the sake of it.


Democracy isn't about unanimity. It never can be because it is never 
achievable.


David

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2010/8/22 Serge Wroclawski :
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, john whelan  wrote:
>> This is also one of my concerns, especially when using imports.  I
>> don't think this has been discussed at all well.
>
> The issue of imports and data has been discussed at length in places
> like the US where imports are a big deal.
>
> The bottom line in those discussions: the ODbL and the contributor
> terms simplify the process immensely, now and in the future.

Simplify at what cost? There is just 'CT will make our lifes easier'.
Which lives? How easier? And WHAT IS THE COST?

I simply want core people of OSM come forward and say honestly that
they don't know how big impact will be.

And for those who claim that complainers are minority - it's bullshit
and you know it. Rest of mappers don't care because they don't have
such imput done in OSM. Those who complain are usually those who
drives map forward. Without them, OSM is dead as serious map, period.

And this is WHY I'm against fork. ODbL now sounds like good
compromise. But they still want CT to be attached as Trojan horse.

Cheers,
Peter.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, john whelan  wrote:
> This is also one of my concerns, especially when using imports.  I
> don't think this has been discussed at all well.

The issue of imports and data has been discussed at length in places
like the US where imports are a big deal.

The bottom line in those discussions: the ODbL and the contributor
terms simplify the process immensely, now and in the future.

- Serge

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:13 AM, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> My largest complaint is that, if you click "yes", you not only are agreeing 
> to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in advance to any 
> future license changes, without being able to know what those new license 
> terms will be.  It is the equivalent to voting someone into office as 
> "President for life".

Except that it's not.

1. There isn't one OSM

The OSMF is a membership driven organization. It's democratic and
membership is open to anyone. The organization took votes for the
current license plan and there's no reason to believe it won't do so
in the future.

2. Much more stringent requirements are put on lots of projects

You may have heard of the GNU project. Are you aware that all
contributors to GNU project must sign over not just license
agreements, but copyright assignments?

Just this week a new project came along called OpenStack, and all
contributors must sign a license agreement to the central body.

This is normal and there are very good reasons these organizations do
what they do.

3. You can always fork later

I've yet to hear many objections to the OBdL other than "I don't like change".

The ODbL is a more solid license. It's a better license in pretty much
every way.

But should the OSMF be taken over by green brain-sucking aliens, you
can always fork in the future.


- Serge

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[john whelan]

This is also one of my concerns, especially when using imports.  I
don't think this has been discussed at all well.

Cheerio John

On 22 August 2010 09:13, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> My largest complaint is that, if you click "yes", you not only are agreeing 
> to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in advance to any 
> future license changes, without being able to know what those new license 
> terms will be.  It is the equivalent to voting someone into office as 
> "President for life".

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[John F. Eldredge]

My largest complaint is that, if you click "yes", you not only are agreeing to 
the current new license, but you are also agreeing in advance to any future 
license changes, without being able to know what those new license terms will 
be.  It is the equivalent to voting someone into office as "President for life".

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
>From  :mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
Date  :Sun Aug 22 06:27:41 America/Chicago 2010


On 22 August 2010 21:12, Robert Scott  wrote:
> On Sunday 22 August 2010, Jenny Campbell wrote:
>> everyone else's concerns
>
> You are trying to make it sound like there are a huge number of people that 
> agree with you. Perhaps you genuinely believe that. If so I think you are 
> tremendously mistaken. It is a very vocal minority. There

You mean like the vocal minority for CTs/ODBL ?

Most won't care either way, but some people might care less if they
don't feel there is an option, at present the CTs/ODBL seem to be
forced upon us or else we won't be able to keep our edits in the
database or edit in future... who is making the ultimatum exactly?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Fabio Alessandro Locati]

> I don't think making passwords publicly available is a good idea, but
> it might be a sign of good faith on OSM(F)'s behalf if it were to
> facilitate an easy method for people waiting to claim their
> account/edits on a forked database.
I hope you are kidding... When someone signed-up at OSM there wasn't
written that that data would be public, and - in our society - is
given for granted that these data are not redistribuited in any way. I
think you are abusing of the idea of 'good faith'
-- 
Fabio Alessandro Locati

Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1)
Phone: +39-328-3799681
MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com

PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2  A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61

Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

Hi,
forgive my ignorance, but are the licenses not some how compatible?
I mean the work has been done up to now under ccsa20 and compatible license.
So that means that the new license allows data from ccsa20 to be
ported over, right?
or do you need the permission of the new authors?
if people want to continue without changing the license, would they be
allowed to?

Is this discussed fork really needed?

thanks for filling me in,
mike

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Florian Heer]

 Am 22.08.2010 14:06, schrieb Renaud MICHEL:

I have no problem if the data I contributed is copied  by [one or multiple]
fork (that's why a full history dump has been created, cf
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/ ), but as those forks
would be different projects I expect the account I created in OSM to be
confined in that project.


Full ACK, creating a fork under the same license would be covered by the 
current license anyway.


Regards, Florian Heer

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[John Smith]

On 22 August 2010 22:06, Renaud MICHEL  wrote:
> Although my login informations in OSM are not very sensible, I expect them
> to be reasonably confidential and only accessible to a few administrators.
> I have no problem if the data I contributed is copied  by [one or multiple]
> fork (that's why a full history dump has been created, cf
> http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/ ), but as those forks
> would be different projects I expect the account I created in OSM to be
> confined in that project.
>
> If, after some though, I decide I prefer to work on a fork, then I will
> create a new account there, possibly using the same user name if it is still
> available, or a new one.

I don't think making passwords publicly available is a good idea, but
it might be a sign of good faith on OSM(F)'s behalf if it were to
facilitate an easy method for people waiting to claim their
account/edits on a forked database.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Renaud MICHEL]

Le dimanche 22 août 2010 à 13:08, Florian Heer a écrit :
> > This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the 
> > usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork 
> > without new registration.
> 
> I think this could be a real problem. Because I for one do not agree to 
> have my log in credentials copied to any other server.

I agree with that.
Although my login informations in OSM are not very sensible, I expect them 
to be reasonably confidential and only accessible to a few administrators.
I have no problem if the data I contributed is copied  by [one or multiple] 
fork (that's why a full history dump has been created, cf 
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/ ), but as those forks 
would be different projects I expect the account I created in OSM to be 
confined in that project.

If, after some though, I decide I prefer to work on a fork, then I will 
create a new account there, possibly using the same user name if it is still 
available, or a new one.

-- 
Renaud Michel

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Felix Hartmann <
extremecar...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the
> usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork
> without new registration.
>

If you must fork, fork the data (planet.osm), not the user data. I disagree
with having my credentials being carried over to a separate project that I
would not want to be involved in.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[John Smith]

On 22 August 2010 21:12, Robert Scott  wrote:
> On Sunday 22 August 2010, Jenny Campbell wrote:
>> everyone else's concerns
>
> You are trying to make it sound like there are a huge number of people that 
> agree with you. Perhaps you genuinely believe that. If so I think you are 
> tremendously mistaken. It is a very vocal minority. There

You mean like the vocal minority for CTs/ODBL ?

Most won't care either way, but some people might care less if they
don't feel there is an option, at present the CTs/ODBL seem to be
forced upon us or else we won't be able to keep our edits in the
database or edit in future... who is making the ultimatum exactly?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[John Smith]

On 22 August 2010 21:09, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Yes, but it can be done clear-headed and without hatred. They want this, we

Considering how heated the debate over the license is, do you
seriously think this won't happen on similar topics as well?

> want that, ok we do our different ways - what I didn't like about Felix's
> post was that it was *not* really about going forward but about ruining it
> for the others as much as possible.

You are just as guilty over using emotive language as any of us.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Felix Hartmann]

 On 22.08.2010 12:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Felix,

Felix Hartmann wrote:
Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a 
future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers 
as possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who 
want to contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF 
and others to tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they 
will loose us and also be faced with a fork.


I am all for people being constructive, so you have my support if you 
want to create a fork, and I have no reason to tell people that they 
should not support that. There are certainly good uses for a fork.


However, you do not only want to create a fork but *also* do your best 
to harm the rest of the project that goes along with ODbL. You say you 
want to convince as many people as possible not to sign up to ODbL, in 
order to cripple that effort, with the hope of in the end forcing 
everyone to stick with your fork.
As I stated, my goal is to have OSM to continue under CCBYSA2.0 -  and I 
think this will workout best by showing the people that they do not have 
to blindly accept the new Odbl including the strange Contributor Terms. 
If there was a fair decision for the users, than the question would not 
be do you accept the new terms Yes or No, but which license do you 
prefer - (and which additional licenses would you accept to work with).


The current process is simply dictated by people that do everything to 
push through ODbL, in hoping that most users blindly accept without ever 
thinking about it!


It is clear that a fork makes only sense, if enough people participate 
in it, but the same is true for OSM under Odbl. If 80% of people wander 
of to work on the fork instead, than soon the remaining 20% of people 
will be faced to decide how they want to continue.


So yes, I do want to do my best to stop the ODbl by showing everyone 
that it is possible for us, to continue successfully using CCBYSA.


These two aspects are separate - you could set up a fork *without* 
doing anti-ODbL propaganda.


I think this is unnecessary. Also, from discussions myself various 
others had with you on the German forum, I still have the impression 
that your opposition to ODbL is based on fear and uncertainty and not 
on fact. I don't think you have understood (or are willing to 
understand) the reasons for changing the license.


(If you feel you need to discuss this further, please make sure to do 
so on legal-talk and not here.)


This is not a good starting position for a fork. I'd rather have 
somone do it who doesn't do it out of blind protest and political 
propaganda.


Bye
Frederik




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CC BYSA 2.0 continuation

[Robert Scott]

On Sunday 22 August 2010, Jenny Campbell wrote:
> everyone else's concerns 

You are trying to make it sound like there are a huge number of people that 
agree with you. Perhaps you genuinely believe that. If so I think you are 
tremendously mistaken. It is a very vocal minority. There have been threats of 
a fork for about a year now from what I can remember. They have not gone 
anywhere so far. The only effect they have had is to be disruptive to those of 
us who want to be productive and use the various lists to discuss our 
productive activities. -talk has become near useless for that. I think most 
fork-threateners have no intention of doing anything other than disrupt things 
until they get their way.

On Sunday 22 August 2010, Felix Hartmann wrote:
> Why should We?
> 
> Is this mailinglist excluding anyone who does not agree to the Odbl? If 
> so then clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else so fuck off.

You are proposing to start your own project. This project would not be OSM. 
This is a list to discuss OSM.


I can't believe I have got sucked in to this, but I've spent so long watching 
this list degenerate.


robert.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

John Smith wrote:

This is not a good starting position for a fork. I'd rather have somone do
it who doesn't do it out of blind protest and political propaganda.



License disputes is one of the more common reasons for forks to occur.


Yes, but it can be done clear-headed and without hatred. They want this, 
we want that, ok we do our different ways - what I didn't like about 
Felix's post was that it was *not* really about going forward but about 
ruining it for the others as much as possible.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Florian Heer]

Felix Hartmann schrieb:
 Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a 
future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers 
as possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want 
to contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and 
others to tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will 
loose us and also be faced with a fork.


I think this is quite interesting: if you do not do as I want, YOU will 
be responsible. Isn't there a term for this? I think it's "blackmail"


This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the 
usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork 
without new registration.


I think this could be a real problem. Because I for one do not agree to 
have my log in credentials copied to any other server.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[John Smith]

On 22 August 2010 20:58, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> This is not a good starting position for a fork. I'd rather have somone do
> it who doesn't do it out of blind protest and political propaganda.

License disputes is one of the more common reasons for forks to occur.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Frederik Ramm]

Felix,

Felix Hartmann wrote:
Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future 
without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers as 
possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want to 
contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and others to 
tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will loose us and 
also be faced with a fork.


I am all for people being constructive, so you have my support if you 
want to create a fork, and I have no reason to tell people that they 
should not support that. There are certainly good uses for a fork.


However, you do not only want to create a fork but *also* do your best 
to harm the rest of the project that goes along with ODbL. You say you 
want to convince as many people as possible not to sign up to ODbL, in 
order to cripple that effort, with the hope of in the end forcing 
everyone to stick with your fork.


These two aspects are separate - you could set up a fork *without* doing 
anti-ODbL propaganda.


I think this is unnecessary. Also, from discussions myself various 
others had with you on the German forum, I still have the impression 
that your opposition to ODbL is based on fear and uncertainty and not on 
fact. I don't think you have understood (or are willing to understand) 
the reasons for changing the license.


(If you feel you need to discuss this further, please make sure to do so 
on legal-talk and not here.)


This is not a good starting position for a fork. I'd rather have somone 
do it who doesn't do it out of blind protest and political propaganda.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Jenny Campbell]

More talk from the folk who would rather brush everyone else's concerns 
under the carpet I see? I seriously look on OSM in despair at the moment 
with comments like that.


Jeni

On 22/08/2010 11:26, Robert Scott wrote:


How about you start with your own mailing lists?


   


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Felix Hartmann]

 On 22.08.2010 12:26, Robert Scott wrote:

On Sunday 22 August 2010, Felix Hartmann wrote:

This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the
usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork
without new registration.

How about you start with your own mailing lists?


robert.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Why should We?

Is this mailinglist excluding anyone who does not agree to the Odbl? If 
so then clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else so fuck off.


As I hope this is not the case, currently we should be able to work from 
here too. (besides as I noticed by private mails, there are already 
people working on a fork on a rather private basis for now)...


This list should be for general talk about OSM, and working on how to 
continue OSM as we know it, should be part of it!



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Robert Scott]

On Sunday 22 August 2010, Felix Hartmann wrote:
> This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the 
> usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork 
> without new registration.

How about you start with your own mailing lists?


robert.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Jenny Campbell]

You've got my support. I haven't got involved in all the silly 
bickering, nor do I want to. The moment I am forced to contribute under 
the new licence will be the day I stop contributing. This isn't the OSM 
I signed up for.


Jeni

On 22/08/2010 11:08, Felix Hartmann wrote:
 Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a 
future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers 
as possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want 
to contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and 
others to tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will 
loose us and also be faced with a fork.


This is not for legal-talk, because it should not be about why we 
don't want the Odbl, but what WE can do to stop it and continue 
working under CCBYSA 2.0


This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the 
usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork 
without new registration.


I put up a wiki page with a few points here, please contribute:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ccbysa_fork

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Felix Hartmann]

 Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a 
future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers as 
possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want to 
contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and others to 
tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will loose us and 
also be faced with a fork.


This is not for legal-talk, because it should not be about why we don't 
want the Odbl, but what WE can do to stop it and continue working under 
CCBYSA 2.0


This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the 
usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork 
without new registration.


I put up a wiki page with a few points here, please contribute:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ccbysa_fork

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk