On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Ed Avis schrieb:
>>
>> Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
>
> Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of
> how "active contributors" are defined?
There's not a clear definition of how 67% is
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:33:59PM +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Ed Avis schrieb:
> >Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
>
> Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear
> definition of how "active contributors" are defined?
It is quite well defined but not well
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:38AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
> >
> >If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
> >of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
> >then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s ha
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Anthony schrieb:
>>
>> 1) You can't take things out of the public domain.
>
> Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind)
> make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different
> terms you lik
Anthony schrieb:
1) You can't take things out of the public domain.
Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind)
make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any
different terms you like, right?
I think it's clear that what is currently in the OSM
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is
> "free and open". I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the
> contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority
> (perhaps a minority of on
Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is
"free and open". I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the
contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority
(perhaps a minority of one) on this point so I don't bang on about it *too*
often
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive
> something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that
> you received it.
"Share alike" was a term invented by CC. They define it, in plain
English, as "
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>
>> Rob Myers schrieb:
>>>
>>> Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to
>>> the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide
>>> sources demonstrati
Robert Kaiser writes:
>>Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
>
>Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear
>definition of how "active contributors" are defined?
It says they have "edited the Project" in the past 3 months. But the point is
that this could, in
On 12/10/2010 02:29 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Rob Myers schrieb:
Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to
the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide
sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions.
WHAT about "IANAL" in my me
Ed Avis schrieb:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear
definition of how "active contributors" are defined?
Robert Kaiser
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstre
Rob Myers schrieb:
Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to
the applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide
sources demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions.
WHAT about "IANAL" in my message don't you understand?
Robert Kaiser
_
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a
> period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts and
> do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors
> (electorate). While a theoretical, I simpl
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard
> that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the
> control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the
> future. And OSM h
Francis,
thank you for your detailed explanation.
The position I am in is that I have submitted data which is based on
CC-BY-SA sources, my points below are base upon this fact
- Original Message -
From: "Francis Davey"
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Sent: Friday, De
On 09/12/2010 22:16, Gregory Arenius wrote:
The city of San Francisco has made a bunch of geo data available. I
plan on importing the address nodes so that we can have door to door
routing for San Francisco and for geocoding purposes. I just want to
see if the click through is compatible. My
On 10/12/10 09:10, Simon Ward wrote:
If the change is so different that it is not covered in an explicit list
of licences *and* their upgrades that were agreed to by contributors,
then actually, yes, I want to tie people’s hands from making such a
change. It should be substantially harder, not
In general, I think you completely miss the point. Wherever you might
like me to go, I am part of the community, so are all of the other
people who disagree with you.
If a small number of people coming up with the CTs wants to ignore me
and others for the sake of getting something out, then I don
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:48:47AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote:
> >If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
> >This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as
> >“free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally def
Frederik Ramm writes:
>Or OSMF could simply sell off the servers, have a grand board meeting on
>the Maledives with all expenses paid, and declare bankruptcy afterwards.
>
>Oh wait, they can do that even now.
I do rather agree with you that trying to nail down and exclude all the
nefarious
an
Grant Slater writes:
>>The definition of active
>>contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking
>>contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy.
>OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a
>period of at least 10 months
[I’ve followed up Francis’ post, but also quoted from another
sub‐thread, because I think his post includes a response to that.]
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:17:50AM +, I wrote:
> If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
> This includes being precise about the possi
Hi,
On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote:
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is
deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising
you can think of. The balance is wrong, and
On 10 December 2010 08:28, Francis Davey wrote:
>
> Eg, the open government licence (UK) requires that certain conditions
> are met, eg that data protection rules are not broken and that a form
> of attribution is used. The contributor would be in breach of the
> licence if they contributed withou
On 10/12/10 02:17, Simon Ward wrote:
If there’s any ambiguity, I’d rather remove as much of it as possible.
This includes being precise about the possible licences, especially as
“free” or “open” isn’t to my knowledge legally defined.
But we don't know the possible licence. It may not yet exis
On 10 December 2010 02:13, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:16:44AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> As I understood it, the old CTs basically required the contributor
>> to guarantee that his contribution was compatible with the CT, while
>> the new CTs only require the contributor to
Hi,
On 12/10/10 00:15, Ed Avis wrote:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. The definition of active
contributor can probably be altered by the simple expedient of blocking
contributions from those who don't click 'agree' to any proposed new policy.
Or OSMF could simply sell off
28 matches
Mail list logo
