Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> So "if we can't get rid of the click-through" is not the question.
>
> Replace it by "if we cannot find a license that works without
> clicktrough".
Well, there ain't none.
Sorry, I'm over-simplifying. But the question is really simple, it's
just the answer that's com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> clicktrough
> is the embodiment of impracticality.
Yes.
Using the data should require no agreement. Distributing modifications
(and by distributing I mean "exposing in any way to users not employed
or subcontracted by your co
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> It's worth clarifying that the click-through is not something that's
> expressly specified in "the license" (i.e. ODBL).
There are two important aspects to this.
First, if we want the community to make an informed decision about
whether they want the ODbL or not
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> what we
> want is suitable as some kind of ethics/morality stick we can use to
> beat people who misbehave, even if they misbehave within the envelope of
> the law.
>
I hope this thread has something to do with punishi
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If either the current license draft or the "brief brief" mean that in
> the future, OSM data may only be offered after displaying a note to
> the user and requesting him to click "ok" (or the equivalent in other
> media), then this would be a significant drawback compared to
Jochen Topf wrote:
> I see the "click-through" is still in! Doesn't anybody else think this
> is completely insane? An Open License with a click through?
> [...]
> If we can't get rid of the click-through, the license is, in my opinion,
> absolutely not acceptible.
It's worth clarifying that the
Hi,
> I see the "click-through" is still in! Doesn't anybody else think this
> is completely insane? An Open License with a click through?
The license text didn't have anything about click-through, click-
wrap, browse-wrap or whatever, it only had the bit about being a
contract.
If either the
I see the "click-through" is still in! Doesn't anybody else think this
is completely insane? An Open License with a click through?
Firefox just tried this is a Beta version and it got thrown out again
after a day.
The wiki says: "All registered users would agree to this on signing up
so will not
I've reverted the Open Data License page on the wiki to something near
its original form, as the point of it (to provide a quick, one-stop
comparison between CC-BY-SA and the ODBL) was getting lost amid all
the 'brief' stuff.
Peter's brief initiative is now at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/i
A. Bulk contributors
How is "bulk contributions" in 1) 1. defined? This could lead to problems when
there are hundreds of bulk contributors!
My proposal: Only attribution to OSM. Bulk contributors can be on the OSM
web page somewhere.
B. Availability of derived dataset
If I understand 1) 2.ff c
10 matches
Mail list logo
