Hi,
John Smith wrote:
people deriving from say Yahoo, is that information allowed to become PD?
Yes. Contrary to popular belief, Yahoo has never struck any special
agreement with OSM. They have evaluated their own terms of service and
concluded that tracing off their imagery is generally leg
On 19 July 2010 03:41, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I am happy that OSMF have added the PD option to the relicensing question,
> and I will try to convince as many mappers as possible to tick it. It makes
> no difference for the legal side of implementing ODbL but I hope that the
> Pro-PD outcome will b
Tim,
TimSC wrote:
Firstly, the pro-PD people could
propose a "strings attached" deal to OSMF as a condition for relicensing
their data. After relicensing, the pro-PD people have their leverage
watered down by the contributor terms.
Speaking as a pro-PD person, I think I am happy enough with
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:00:30PM +0100, TimSC wrote:
> For the conditions for relicensing our individual contribution's, I
> propose the following. Each "data object" (either a node, way or
> relation) have one or more authors. For each data object, we will
> agree to relicense our data as ODbL,
On 18 July 2010 23:00, TimSC wrote:
> an amicable arrangement. I am not suggesting backmail! After all, the whole
> point of PD is that people can do what they want with the data.
I fail to see how you can "force" people to dual license as PD, since
you even acknowledge that is the point of PD ev
Hi all,
It seems to me mapping contributors can primarily influence in outcome
of the relicensing in two ways: their choice relicensing their own
contributions in the project and their involvement after the switch. I
was considering how those two factors can be used to encourage others to
rel
