On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike to
> which I replied:
>
> On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote:
If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes
or blank check
Anthony,
you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike
to which I replied:
On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote:
If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes
or blank check rules in there that involve trusting some unknown set
of people that can ch
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> How can we have the hubris to say "we know what's best
> for OSM in 10 years"?
Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that.
On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future.
___
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb:
There seems to be a substantial number of OSMF members who consider all data
created by individuals to be community-owned, even going so far as to accuse
people who refuse to accept the CT as "holding our data hostage". This mindset
gives me a feeling that OSMF an
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I would sincerely ask
> anyone who feels the desire to pull the rug from under the project's feet in
> 10 years time if the project doesn't do what one likes: please recosider,
> and if you still cannot trust the project enough that you can
Hi,
On 11/26/10 16:24, Mike Dupont wrote:
Do you *really* think it is right to say: What's mine is mine, and if those
100 people in 10 years make any step that I don't like then I will withdraw
my work from under them?
please stop at this point.
We are not talking about withdrawing anything h
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb:
I know that this thought experiment is absurd. I generally trust the OSFM to
do the right thing. But I would be far more comfortable with being able to
opt-out of any license change that I consider problematic.
How do you think that can work in practice? We are
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Picture yourself next to 100 people who
> have come after you, who have taken what you have given to the project and
> who have built on it, improved it, made it "their" project.
>
> Do you *really* think it is right to say: What's mine is m
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Do you *really* think it is right to say: What's mine is mine, and if those
> 100 people in 10 years make any step that I don't like then I will withdraw
> my work from under them?
please stop at this point.
We are not talking about withdr
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Rob Myers writes:
>>What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a
>>database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the
>>granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we
>>regard points, ways, up
Hi,
On 11/26/10 15:24, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
My thought experiment was based on being locked out of the server, being
unable to contribute, and thereby loosing the right to vote.
I agree that the CT currently seem to have no provision to make sure
that someone who *wants* to be an ac
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Matthias Julius wrote:
> No, a license cannot protect any work or restrict what one can do with the
> work. It can only give permissions. Of course, these permissions might
> have some conditions (like BY-SA). The protection comes from the law
> (copyright, data
>> Maybe we should work on that bit then. Not give the individual an
>> opt-out right, but instead force OSMF to publish. Something like: "As a
>> condition of this agreement, OSMF agrees not only to license the
>> database under the licenses given, but also to make the database
>> publicly availab
Hi Frederik,
> Your thought experiment was built on OSMF *changing* the CT.
My thought experiment was based on being locked out of the server, being
unable to contribute, and thereby loosing the right to vote.
> This is pure speculation. I think that very people will be so
> short-sighted that
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Matthias Julius wrote:
> The LWG say that the new CT are a sub-set of CT 1.0.
They clearly are not, as of the 1.2 draft. Among other things, the
section 2 grants are expanded, to include "database right or any
related right".
Hi Matthias,
> > The License Working Group says that people who agreed to CT v.1.0 will
> > be allowed to switch to the new CT rules, but they will be forced to do
> > so.
>
> Not exactly. The LWG say that the new CT are a sub-set of CT 1.0. There
> is no need for people to explicitly agree to
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> b) Many people contribute to OpenStreetMap and would prefer a Public
> Domain license.
> [...]
> I do not know, however, whether people in group "b" are interested in a
> compromise or whether a fork of OpenStreetMap is seen as inevitable
> anyway.
Plenty of PD
Hi,
On 11/26/10 13:13, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I am sure that each part of the thought experiment is allowed under the
current CT rules. Or do you see something that violates the CT?
Your thought experiment was built on OSMF *changing* the CT.
Now changing the CT doesn't violate the CT
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:14:39 +0100, "Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer"
wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
>> But I don't understand, If you are
>> going to change the CT that has been signed by all these people, don't
>> you have to ask them to sign the new version as well? or did they sign
>> the blank check already a
Hi Mike,
> But I don't understand, If you are
> going to change the CT that has been signed by all these people, don't
> you have to ask them to sign the new version as well? or did they sign
> the blank check already and have no say?
The License Working Group says that people who agreed to CT v.
Hi Frederik,
> You do not give up all control, you say: "Dear OSMF, as long as you play
> by the rules in these CT, you can use my data."
I am sure that each part of the thought experiment is allowed under the
current CT rules. Or do you see something that violates the CT?
> So while you cannot
Hi,
On 11/26/10 10:57, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I would never have contributed under a license that says: "All your
work is now ours. You give up all control. Bugger off if you
disagree."
I think you have misunderstood the issue at hand.
But let me change my thought experiment to somet
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer
wrote:
> I contributed to
> OpenStreetMap because it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA. I would never have
> contributed under a license that says: "All your work is now ours. You give up
> all control. Bugger off if you disagree."
AMEN.
that
Hi Frederik,
> I think the weak point here is the focus of ownership in individual
> contributions. I rather liked it how the new CT/ODbL made it irrelevant
> whether something was "yours" or "mine".
Yes, making it irrelevant whether something was "yours" or "mine" is exactly
the key point here.
adca03156...@localhost>
Message-ID: <90c6e47a092dece1a7770a5cb6164...@localhost>
X-Sender: li...@julius-net.net
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:39:46 +0100, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen" wrote:
> But there is no restriction to do with
> any work that
25 matches
Mail list logo
