>> Rest seemed ok for me but then again I didn't see much participation on
>> this list in the past months so maybe everybody's out mapping.
>>
> I agree that participation is low on this list, possibly main of the 191
> subscribers to legal-talk are listening but not posting. The basic message
> t
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> The main reason I am quiet is that I have been waiting for over a year
> for the switch and I don't want to delay it by starting bickering and
> flaming. The new license is way more appropriate than the old one and
> the sooner we switch the better.
>
> It may be the wron
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
> Sent: 03 October 2008 09:52
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Process for agreeing the new licence
>
> Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
>
Peter Miller wrote:
> I do understand that there is now finally energy within the Foundation to
> push this licence though. SteveC has said that he is on the case and that we
> should await further details which will be good to see and I do hope that
> there will soon be more indication on the lis
Please remove me from this mailing list.
Thank you.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Ed wrote:
> Please remove me from this mailing list.
> Thank you.
You can use the web interface at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
to do so.
Richard
legal-talk-owner
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://
On 3 Oct 2008, at 16:38, Ed wrote:
> Please remove me from this mailing list.
Please use the link at the bottom of every message, http://
lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk , to remove yourself.
Richard
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
> Another example: I could take a planet dump, make a derivated product, and
> *not* release it into the public. You could then buy it from me, and you
> would *not* be bound to release it to the public for free. You could, though,
> possibly lowering the possibilities of me selling a second cop
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Bear in mind that Creative Commons, who actually
> wrote our current licence, would have us dedicate all of OSM's data
> to the public domain
Actually, their position was more or less that it is very likely to be
public domain anyway, dedication or no dedicatio
On 3 Oct 2008, at 14:39, Adrian wrote:
>> I could tell you about our plans for ice cream gloves but I think
>> this
>> does it better:
>
> The difference being that you are planning on trading off of the
> back of
> the goodwill of many other people. I don't think it is unreasonable
> for th
Adrian,
Adrian wrote:
>> I could tell you about our plans for ice cream gloves but I think this
>> does it better:
>
> The difference being that you are planning on trading off of the back of
> the goodwill of many other people.
I'm not associated with Cloudmade in any way, and don't know any
> I'm sort of taking offence at your implied suggestion that there is one
> group of people who "give" to the project and another group, among whom
> you seem to count Cloudmade and would probably also count Geofabrik, of
> people who "take" from the project to make a business.
I'm sorry to hav
12 matches
Mail list logo
