Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:34 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 3 September 2011 19:12, Simon Poole wrote: >> It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply >> accept the CTs. > > Hardly, the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do is just use > CC-by-SA then you don't need to try and get everyone to agree to > horrible terms... In any case (and fortunately), not everyone is a pragmatist. Some people are willing to stand up for their beliefs even when the majority disagrees with them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Richard Fairhurst writes: > > [follow-ups should be to legal-talk yadda yadda] > > > > Russ Nelson wrote: > > > What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is > > > in the public domain? > > > > See > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-August/006608.html > > et seq. > > I only see two people defending the idea, and a lot more questioning > it, that somehow a PD declaration is legally any less binding than > signing a contract. The first is a contract of adhesion: "Here's my > work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." This is incorrect. A waiver is not a contract, let alone a contract of adhesion. (I think maybe you meant a "unilateral contract" rather than a "contract of adhesion", but a waiver isn't one of those either.) The CT is a contract of adhesion. The rest of your message continues to repeat this mistaken premise. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Yippee! JOSM is the best! :-)
I'm trying to create networks of nodes of the cycle node network. Up to now
I've been flying blind. Using search over and over again.
Now I found a nicer solution:
A text file rcn.mapcss with one line in it:
node[rcn_ref] {text-color: blue; font-size: 14; text: rcn_ref; text-halo:
#aa; text-halo-radius: 2; text-position: right;}
Then F12, third option (grid icon), Kaarttekenstijlen (second tab) +
URL/file -> point to this text file.
And voilà; now all the nodes of the cycle node network are shown with a big
fat number besides them, which makes it a lot easier to determine which ones
belong to the same network.
Polyglot
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
Simon Poole wrote: > there are further "minor" points that would have to be considered, for > example voting rights on future license changes. I don't see any problem here. There is a definition of "active contributors" in the CT which does not mention the CT or any of the licenses, just the act of making contributions to the project. Therefore, a contributor who has declared his contributions to be in the PD would be able to vote if and only if he "has edited the Project in any three calendar months from the last 12 months". > It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply > accept the CTs. This might be the pragmatic thing for contributors to do, but it's not a decision that can be made by the OSMF. The pragmatic thing for OSMF to do would be to accept that PD contributions remain in the CT/ODbL database. -- Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 3 September 2011 19:12, Simon Poole wrote: > This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed out > before > there are further "minor" points that would have to be considered, for > example > voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply assume > that all PD contributors don't care, I'm just not quite sure that this is > really the > case. > > It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply > accept the CTs. Hardly, the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do is just use CC-by-SA then you don't need to try and get everyone to agree to horrible terms... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed out before there are further "minor" points that would have to be considered, for example voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply assume that all PD contributors don't care, I'm just not quite sure that this is really the case. It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply accept the CTs. Simon Am 03.09.2011 10:38, schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM): On 3 September 2011 05:03, Russ Nelson wrote: The first is a contract of adhesion: "Here's my work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." The OSMF has the choice of accepting that contract or rejecting it, just as it does the contract formed by agreeing to the Contributor Terms. I don't understand their choice of accepting the one contract but refusing the other. But "Here's my work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." doesn't go as far as the contributor terms do. One would also need to add something along the lines of "And I'm reasonably sure that no-one else has any copyright claims over my contributions that would prevent OSMF re-distributing them under the relevant licenses." This ambiguity is presumably at least one of the reasons why LWG don't feel they're able to accept arbitrary PD declarations. Personally, I'd like to see them produce a simple boilerplate PD declaration that does cover everything they want it to, and then allow people to agree to that somehow. It would, however, need to be a wider rights grant than in the Contributor Terms (since those are the minimum rights that LWG feel they need). But from what I've read I think it could be worded so as to get around the objections that the PD advocates have been raising. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 9/3/2011 4:38 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: One would also need to add something along the lines of "And I'm reasonably sure that no-one else has any copyright claims over my contributions that would prevent OSMF re-distributing them under the relevant licenses." I hope you realize that many people who have agreed to the contributor terms can't say this either. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 3 September 2011 05:03, Russ Nelson wrote: > The first is a contract of adhesion: "Here's my > work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." The OSMF has the > choice of accepting that contract or rejecting it, just as it does the > contract formed by agreeing to the Contributor Terms. I don't > understand their choice of accepting the one contract but refusing the > other. But "Here's my work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." doesn't go as far as the contributor terms do. One would also need to add something along the lines of "And I'm reasonably sure that no-one else has any copyright claims over my contributions that would prevent OSMF re-distributing them under the relevant licenses." This ambiguity is presumably at least one of the reasons why LWG don't feel they're able to accept arbitrary PD declarations. Personally, I'd like to see them produce a simple boilerplate PD declaration that does cover everything they want it to, and then allow people to agree to that somehow. It would, however, need to be a wider rights grant than in the Contributor Terms (since those are the minimum rights that LWG feel they need). But from what I've read I think it could be worded so as to get around the objections that the PD advocates have been raising. -- Robert Whittaker ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
