I've fixed another issue that distorted the overall numbers (the per
user stats were correct), regenerated
everything with the current full history dump (from June), and added a
couple of further countries.
Overall, the situation seems to be substantially better than I would
have expected,
There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August
(https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).
Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their
contributions are public domain.
There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be
maintained in
Am 24.08.2011 16:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
...
One of the PD-but-not-CT-people said something like I don't want to
give any kind of explicit assurance/permission to OSMF. I.e. they
don't want a contract with OSMF. But I think that could be remedied by
offering them a differently worded
Simon said:
Distributing data just
because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of
being
considered negligent.
Then distributing data because someone on the web has stated that
is was CT/ODBL compliant is even negligent.
If you do not provide a set of tools
Well one solution is very simple: just contribute stuff that you mapped
yourself,
and hey presto, 99.9% of all problems vanish (including any issues with
agreeing to
the CTs).
Simon
Am 24.08.2011 19:34, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
Simon said:
Distributing data
On 8/24/2011 8:56 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just
because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being
considered negligent.
You need to search around for safe harbor provisions.
Steve
Simon
Am 24.08.2011
