On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Although, for the most part, CC-BY-SA does have roughly the same effect in
all jurisdictions. You can do whatever you want with the geodata, so long
as you don't legally restrict others from using the geodata you add.
In
Two related things on Contributor Terms:
[80n on share-alike]
By comparison, ODbL+Contributor Terms has properties that break
this principle. A derived work can not be fed back into OSM unless
the author agrees to the contributor terms.
Matt set up a poll at
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:24:47PM +, 80n wrote:
Any share-however-you-like license has the properties you describe. We're
talking about share-alike here.
It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about
contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:33:44PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
back, and that having changed licences once it's important that OSM be
able to change/upgrade/whatever the licence in the future
I believe the contributor terms are too broad. I answered the poll in
favour of moving to the ODbL, but
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
The upgrade clause in the ODbL should be sufficient
for any future licensing, and if the change is away from that, I expect
as a contributor to be consulted about it.
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF
membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
contributors.
if you want to be consulted about any future licensing change, just
join OSMF or continue to
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF
membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
contributors.
I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I
actually think it should
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:21:41AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about
contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is about.
i'm both a producer and a
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I
actually think it should be scrapped completely, because it doesn’t
matter whether somebody isn’t active any more.
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not
active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
why, while
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not
active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
why, while
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will
make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with
information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and
if I don't react
12 matches
Mail list logo
