Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:
On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that
perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several
months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get the new
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I am very sure it is not allowed. If it was allowed then Ed would have made
that clear on any number of occasions recently, notably at SOTM and at
FOSS.
I have never met Ed, so I will have to do with reading their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote:
Hello,
I have a map which the technical service of my local authority gave me
when I visited their building and asked for a map, showing the
geographical boundaries of this authority.
I
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
Subject: License License License
Can we hear that as a limerick? ;-)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
The license is changing
frustration is waning
we can all see
what the new license will be
Some terms need explaining
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
Subject: License License License
Can we hear that as a limerick? ;-)
Bye
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
Sent: 13 October 2008 00:14
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
Mike
