On 16 January 2012 13:03, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/1/16 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com:
The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very
conservative. Is that necessary? I'm pretty sure not, but it's what
we're going to have to live with.
+1
Are
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
I am deeply shocked this morning to learn of the murder of [our] friend Ulf.
The OSMF site has a page where we can add our memories of Ulf.
http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/01/18/ulf-m%C3%B6ller-1973-2012/
First of all I must say that I highly respect the work of everyone who
has been actively involved in the licence change, including the LWG
members, the writers of licence change inspection programs and everyone
involved in discussions.
I have been watching the process for more than two years
Knowing it does not really start the discussion: I totally agree.
Lukas (LM_1)
2012/1/18 ant antof...@gmail.com:
First of all I must say that I highly respect the work of everyone who has
been actively involved in the licence change, including the LWG members, the
writers of licence change
Andrzej Zaborowski wrote:
Are you serious? Around where I map I estimate there are 500k to a
couple millions OSM objects who's authors have never agreed to ODbL or
OpenStreetMap CT, but which show green on the license change maps.
These nodes have been imported from UMP, a Polish sister project.
Hi,
On 01/18/2012 06:13 PM, ant wrote:
As far as I can see the details of the implementation of the licence
change, i.e. of what is actually going to happen on April 1st, are not
known - or at least not revealed. Correct me if I am wrong.
They are not known. A mailing list has been created
Hi,
On 01/18/2012 07:48 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
The risk of being sued by a non-responding 50-node mapper is rather
zero as the cost of a small lawsuit in Great Britain is about £200
which is too high for a non-responding mapper.
This is quite a cynical approach.
We can ignore the
On 18 January 2012 23:33, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 01/18/2012 05:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the
intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to
OSM under CC-By-SA long before OSM existed.
