On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20 August 2010 10:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> But mappers are not employed by OSMF, so we need some sort of
>> contract that says "I, the mapper, allow OSMF to make a database from my
>> data and publish it".
>
> This is pro
On 20 August 2010 21:30, Nick Hocking wrote:
> It is for this reason that I believe clause 3 of the CT is essential. This
> current situation must not be allowed to happen again.
The problem is the scope of section 3, not it's existence.
___
legal-talk
Hi,
On 20 August 2010 10:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> But mappers are not employed by OSMF, so we need some sort of
> contract that says "I, the mapper, allow OSMF to make a database from my
> data and publish it".
This is probably all that the CTs should say, I know that the
translation into lega
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:59:41PM +1000, Liz wrote:
> I find the choice of 300 people quite ironic.
> That's about the membership of OSMF, from where comes the pressure to change
> the licence and the CTs.
Let’s not forget that some of those members don’t agree with the licence
and/or CTs.
The
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20 August 2010 03:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > one million objects is really not
> > something we should make a big fuss about. [...]
> > After the Haiti earthquake, 1
> > million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks.
>
> So 3
Next week I will be visiting the Adelaide Hills (South Australia) and was
planning to resurvey Mt Barker in order
to add the street names to a lot of roads that have not yet had them tagged.
However to do so at this stage would be pointless since eithe of two of the
three previous editors could
ef
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> My apologies. In that case: "My main problem is that we're having this
> discussion now, when the CT were finalised in June, instead of before that."
Which discussion? It looks to me like we did have this discussion
before that. I remember
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I don't really know what others do, but I no longer tag my changeset
> with nearmap, only individual objects with source=nearmap (without
> mentioning nearmap in the comment).
none of my changesets would mention Nearmap, although I have traced some
irri
- Original Message -
From: "Frederik Ramm"
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
(Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what
you
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
(Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what you're
Exactly... you are trying to sell us a particular happy meal that
isn't making us happy...
"us" being...?
And I'm not trying to sell anything. If you agree that some for of CT is
required, and y
Hi,
Francis Davey wrote:
Has anyone given much thought to how this works for the sui generis
database right of the European Union?
Certainly the EU hasn't, the whole database right is written for a world
where company X pays employees to gather data.
I am wondering (as others have wondered
On 20 August 2010 18:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> (Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what you're
Exactly... you are trying to sell us a particular happy meal that
isn't making us happy...
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as "the
license change". I don't think that you can separate them.
Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless
they are a package deal?
No, my statement above is not politically or
On 20 August 2010 18:21, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as "the
> license change". I don't think that you can separate them.
Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless
they are a package deal?
> The reason is that
On 20 August 2010 09:21, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> So you *need* CT in which the contributor basically signs over his data to
> OSMF who then make a database from it.
>
Has anyone given much thought to how this works for the sui generis
database right of the European Union? In other words, *does* th
John,
John Smith wrote:
But in the grand scheme of things, not changing the license (I *knew* this
would become a license discussion ;) is, in my opinion, likely to alienate
Because you keep making it a license issue, but of course it's not and
you know it.
In my eyes the ODbL and CT are par
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Anyway, the number of people who have submitted "nearmap" changesets is 121,
> the total number of people who haved edited in Australia is 2752; so while
> NearMap-affected data may be up to 10% of Australia, NearMap-using users
> only make u
On 20 August 2010 18:11, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> But in the grand scheme of things, not changing the license (I *knew* this
> would become a license discussion ;) is, in my opinion, likely to alienate
Because you keep making it a license issue, but of course it's not and
you know it.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:03:37AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC wrote:
> > They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike
> > long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap.
>
> I think most problems currently with the CT is because there is too
>>> NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data
>>> hostage in this way. We all have our different opinions on the license,
>
> This is just silly. In what way are NearMap attempting to "hold a lot of
> data hostage". They have allowed the OSM community to trace from
Andrzej,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about?
Let's put it this way:
If 300 mappers are enough to put in a veto against the CT or the license
change then we can stop right now, because I am pretty sure that
*whatever* you do (even if y
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I think that the people count more than the data they contribute.
That's a good statement. I'm happy that you have finally come to
understand what this project is about! I was beginning to think you
might just be here for the fun of the argument, whatever argument it
22 matches
Mail list logo
