On 8 June 2011 11:25, David Groom wrote:
> So, Andreas what evidence do you have, that the majority of those who have
> agreed to the CT's, have given along a thoughtful consideration of all the
> issues involved, and having done so have come to a reasoned decision on
> whether or not they can agr
- Original Message -
From: "Andreas Perstinger"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 2011-06-07 10:35, Ed Avis wrote:
Frederik Ramm writes:
3. OSMF to choose a new license that is "free and open", pres
Richard said:
I understand that Creative Commons declined to participate in drafting
ODbL when invited. Why is that? Why the sudden interest in data now,
after having declined the opportunity earlier?
>
I don't speak for CC here, I speak for SC, which was far less integrated
into CC t
I'm led to believe that people have been issuing LWG with private lists of
demands that they want met before they will consent to ODbL+CT.
Could I ask that said people have the courtesy to post their demands here, too?
It would be a shame if the suspicion arose that the process is being swayed b
Hi,
Nakor Osm wrote:
How do you plan to achieve that in areas where there are not (m)any
mappers on the ground? Not everything can be done through arm-chair mapping.
Yes, I'm sure that there will be problem areas. An area with little or
no mappers on the ground is a problem area *even today*,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> We're planning to have most things remapped by CT supporters before we make
> the switch, so it will hardly be noticeable.
>
>
>>
>>
How do you plan to achieve that in areas where there are not (m)any mappers
on the ground? Not everything c
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM, john wilbanks
wrote:
> Yup, I said this:
>
> "I'm going to be a little provocative here and say that your data is
> already unprotected [under CC-BY-SA], and you cannot slap a license on
> it and protect it. ... That means I'm free to ignore any kind of
> share-ali
Yup, I said this:
"I'm going to be a little provocative here and say that your data is
already unprotected [under CC-BY-SA], and you cannot slap a license on
it and protect it. ... That means I'm free to ignore any kind of
share-alike you apply to your data. I've got a download of the OSM
data du
2011/6/7 Anthony :
>
> And what's the best, most accurate thing one can say under the ODbL/DbCL?
>
> Some contributors may have intellectual property rights over some
> aspects of their contribution in some places and some of those rights
> might be copyright and/or database rights. The ODbL might
Am i missing something ?
Dermot is answering messages that are not on this list.
Gert Gremmen
-
Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest)
Before printing, think about the environment.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:de
On 7 June 2011 15:20, Anthony wrote:
> "Of 8,402,321 people eligible to vote, 8,357,560, or 99.5%, cast
> ballots--8,348,700 of which favored Hussein, the government said.
> There were 5,808 spoiled ballots."
Luckily our licence vote is more transparent. Details on who said yes
and no are availa
Matt Amos writes:
>also the VP of science commons did say [2]:
>
>"I'm going to be a little provocative here and say that your data is
>already unprotected [under CC-BY-SA], and you cannot slap a license on
>it and protect it. ... That means I'm free to ignore any kind of
>share-alike you apply t
2011/6/7 Matt Amos :
>
> very probably that wasn't the official creative commons line, and he
> wasn't a lawyer, but neither have i seen his comments officially
> refuted by anyone at CC.
.. or even disavowed :-)
Even in the European Union, where there is considerably more harmony,
this is not at
On 7 June 2011 14:35, Anthony wrote:
> A 2/3 majority of what? When was a poll held?
Your next paragraph suggests that you know when.
> Do you really think it's a valid poll where, for months, you're only
> allowed to say yes, and then even after you're allowed to say no, you
> can switch your
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 07/06/11 12:37, Ed Avis wrote:
>> Matt Amos writes:
>>
>>> i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect
>>> the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from
>>> Creative Commons itself!
>>
>> I would be interested to read that.
>
> S
On 07/06/11 12:37, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>
>> i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect
>> the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from
>> Creative Commons itself!
>
> I would be interested to read that.
Science Commons certainly used to say that the licences *shou
Matt Amos writes:
>i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect
>the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from
>Creative Commons itself!
I would be interested to read that.
My understanding is that Creative Commons have affirmed what has demonstrably
been the case all along - that
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Grant Slater writes:
>
>>>- block anyone who says no from contributing
>>>and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors.
>
>>Reality check... So to "steal" all our precious data and kick the
>>majority of the contributors the "stup
Grant Slater writes:
>>- block anyone who says no from contributing
>>and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors.
>Reality check... So to "steal" all our precious data and kick the
>majority of the contributors the "stupid evil OSMF" you propose would
>have to shut down people
On 7 June 2011 09:35, Ed Avis wrote:
> Frederik Ramm writes:
>
>>3. OSMF to choose a new license that is "free and open", present it to
>>OSM community for vote, and get 2/3 of active mappers to agree with the
>>new license. This is the only bit that is new, and the "2/3 of mappers"
>>hurdle can
On Tuesday, 7 June 2011, Ed Avis wrote:
>
> The process is pretty simple really:
>
> - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote
A lot of thought and consultation went into the proposed licence and
polls were taken to back up the conclusions. Of course, the fact that
the proc
Hi,
On 06/07/11 10:35, Ed Avis wrote:
The process is pretty simple really:
- decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote
- get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence
- block anyone who says no from contributing
and presto! you have your 2/3 majority
Frederik Ramm writes:
>3. OSMF to choose a new license that is "free and open", present it to
>OSM community for vote, and get 2/3 of active mappers to agree with the
>new license. This is the only bit that is new, and the "2/3 of mappers"
>hurdle can hardly be called "allow the board to tweak
Hi,
On 06/07/11 06:27, Mike Dupont wrote:
The people are not being asked to agree to a license in general, but
to give up an allow the board to tweak the license for them.
No.
There are three ways in which the license can be changed in the future.
1. Ask everyone to relicense to "X". This is
24 matches
Mail list logo
