On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:59:30PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
Guess what - I dont trust the OSMF - In the past the OSMF has decided
to relicense, decided to use the ODBL and decided upon the CT.
In no way the contributers have been asked - the people who actually did
the work.
So why
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 18 April 2011 07:26, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
Thanks Grant,
I understand what the OSMF stands for, and my question was maybe
unclear:
What does this phrase (about the
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 01:00:26PM +, Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote:
On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
I must admit, however, that basically
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
To me the OKD fits with the spirit of OSM. I don’t think it’s
sufficient by itself, but I can’t win everything.
You ask me how I find it limiting, then you say you'd rather not be
limited by it?
No. I said I don’t think it is
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08:11AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
I think it is something reasonable to refer to, and for
those actually supporting open data is a very good definition. OSM
I agree.
doesn’t have t to stick to the OKD, but I think you are wrong in
dismissing it entirely.
You
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion, but I
think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting,
you feel that OSM would be limited by it. So I have to ask, is that
correct?
I feel that
Rob, thank you, your answers to my barrage of questions were most
helpful, and have showed me that I’m not completely off course in my
thinking.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
Why leave it undefined?
To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means
[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
don’t think
they are acting in the best interests of the community.
*I* can compromise to form something agreeable, can you/they?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:54:08AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote:
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do
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 hands from
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:27PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
Of course the current OSMF management act in good faith and would never
do such a thing, but in theory it is possible.
We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s
good, yet if a contributor should attempt to
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 guarantee that his
contribution is compatible with
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:50:41PM +, Grant Slater wrote:
On 9 December 2010 10:01, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote:
About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
clarification about free and open license, to add both share alike
and attribution clauses.
I
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid.
The Contributor Terms effectively change the licence.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:49:56PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
ODbL in itself has an upgrade clause, too; it allows derived databases
(including of course a complete copy) to be licensed under (section
4.4)
I think the upgrade clause in ODbL is sufficiently flexible for possible
licence
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:15:16PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
If OSMF is not stoping existing contributors to continue to upload
their CC BY-SA work without agreeing the the CTs, perhaps new users
should not be required to agree to the CTs to sign up. Otherwise some
new users will be shuned
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:28:05AM -0700, Kai Krueger wrote:
There appear to be some interesting thoughts about this in the most recent
LWG meeting minutes ( https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk )
in the Contributor Terms Revision section:
e.g.
If you want to import data
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:59:19AM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed?
Yes, hence why I said this (highlighting added):
I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
terms. *There is a very small amount*, but OSMF
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:30:44AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote:
I think this is slightly ignoring the fact that the CT are the result
of compromises, and were developed over quite some time before being
rolled out.
I believe some of the issues being mentioned now were being mentioned
since the
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against
the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a
licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with
the licence change.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:32:39PM -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I think the issue of whether we really want the ability for
the license to be changed completely should be discussed first.
Obviously those who
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […]
Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against
if
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:48:22AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. […]
Yes
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote:
1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus?
OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else?
Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or
minority
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Someone
in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and
someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:40:23AM +0200, Nic Roets wrote:
Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an
idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing
their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law,
contract
The second clause grants “OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
copyright over anything within the Contents. It has been debated that
this is even necessary already, so I’m not going to start on that…
What I would like
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:04:01AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
So I don't think setting a minimum attribution level is a good idea,
at least from a user freedom point of view.
I agree. I mentioned a minimum attribution because others seem to want
that. The LWG and/or OSMF only seem to be
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 06:56:15PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and
*specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in
order to make *clear* what you want
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
We can do the license change now because it is the right thing to do,
or we can do the license change now and make future license changes
simpler for future OpenSteetMap communities.
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents. That leaves
quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and
distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in
ten years will have a larger community and a larger data volume by
orders of magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand
in any way over and above the
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:20:18AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can
you give examples for using and distributing individual contents
that way?
Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any,
because
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:03:37AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike
long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap.
I think most problems currently with the CT is because
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Yup. But then again, by the time data has lapsed it is very likely
to be utterly useless. I am 99% certain that in 10 years time you
*will*, for most use cases, be able to get data that is more current
than OSM and has less
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:42:35PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
The presumption is that contributors who joined under ccbysa only,
have the right to choose whether to proceed under ODbL or not. Do you
suggest that they should not have a choice?
Not arguing against people having a choice, but I
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:17:13PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
Except that in many jurisdictions, true PD doesn't exist like in France,
where you cannot remove the moral right of someone even if you sold your
rights.
For what it’s worth, you can’t actually remove moral rights in the UK
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers
are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should.
Simon
--
A complex system
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the
contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given
with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they
didn't
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:43AM +1000, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the
mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a
reference or an example to follow.
Why do we need contract law at all?
I know
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:00:30PM +0100, TimSC wrote:
For the conditions for relicensing our individual contribution's, I
propose the following. Each data object (either a node, way or
relation) have one or more authors. For each data object, we will
agree to relicense our data as ODbL, if
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 04:55:36PM +1000, Liz wrote:
just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by
Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de
My apologies. I didn’t mean to mis‐quote.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:13:07PM +0100, 80n wrote:
The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project
is to fork it.
How about we do the significant changes and anyone unhappy with them can
fork it? That works too.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more
than obvious I'm bucking the trend...
Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so
vocal… ;)
Simon
--
A complex system that works is
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:14:46PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
And that's where the fear comes in, just because you may have good
intentions doesn't mean that it won't harm my goals.
Did you think there would be no losers? The project can’t please
everyone. If you care that much, why not
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated
Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem
with the license. Unfortunately people thought that because laws about
rights to data
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:08:07AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
At this stage I'm against the process, not the new license, but of
course you completely missed what my motivation is, which is making an
informed determination if the loss is acceptable or not, if it isn't
and ODBL still goes ahead
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Notice the absence of any or later clause here. This means that if
ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we
would have to go through the whole 2/3 of active members have to
accept poll to upgrade.
I don’t
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the
legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let
develop
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 01:36:09AM +0100, I wrote:
Getting people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t
agree because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in
my opinion.
The project needs to understand the consequences of a license change,
this one or any future
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote:
Interesting. That is a lower figure than I personally was envisioning when we
made the above definition, and therefore potentially disenfranchising of
genuine OSM community. Perhaps we should review it, 3 calendar months in the
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:24:47PM +, 80n wrote:
Any share-however-you-like license has the properties you describe. We're
talking about share-alike here.
It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about
contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:33:44PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
back, and that having changed licences once it's important that OSM be
able to change/upgrade/whatever the licence in the future
I believe the contributor terms are too broad. I answered the poll in
favour of moving to the ODbL, but
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF
membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
contributors.
if you want to be consulted about any future licensing change, just
join OSMF or continue to
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF
membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
contributors.
I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I
actually think it should
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not
active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
why, while
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not
active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
why, while
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will
make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with
information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and
if I don't react
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 07:09:30PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote:
I believe there was a discussion that viral does necessarily mean
reciprocal, hence the use of the word. I'll check tomorrow if no one else
comes back.
If you get down to various meanings already documented in English,
neither
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:43:09AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
but while we’re
trying to prevent all sides equally
Preventing all sides equally is indeed something we're aiming at, with
all our hearts ;-)
Yes, thanks for that. I noticed not long after I sent the mail, but
didn’t think
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:30:01PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If you have enough room then we prefer the URLs for OSM and CC written
out. There is some info here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F
Now that we
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:14:49AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What I'm concerned with is mainly: How big is the risk of someone
whitewashing our data from the contractual part of the ODbL, then
introducing it to a large jurisdiction without something like a database
directive (the US?),
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:39:01AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What I wanted to say was that, to a certain degree, *any* certainty is
better than a random assortment of may, might, the project
consensus seems to be that..., i am not a lawyer but..., depending
on your jurisdiction, and
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:26:14PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
why are we bothering with switching OSM to 1.0 at all?
Why not just wait for the 1.1 fixed version?
1) Because ODbL 1.0 is better than C-By-SA
So far that is one thing that
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:30:33PM +1100, Liz wrote:
I don't find a telephone conference acceptable.
While Frederick mentions the troubles of language, I don't want to be on the
phone at 0200 local time. I'd rather be asleep, and my critical faculties
probably would be asleep at that time
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 08:15:23PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Very often CC-BY-SA items will be conveyed with contractual
restrictions: Andy A cited the other day that the cycle map has its own Ts
Cs, for example.
So has CloudMade; they say that you may access
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:05:00AM +, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not
working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s
far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of
it.
Some
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:08:58AM +, Peter Miller wrote:
I do not read the ODbL this way. I read that only persons bound by the
license/contract are prohibited from reverse engineering.
Clarification here is needed.
When we find an issue like this then lets document it on the wiki and
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 01:40:47PM +0100, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org
wrote:
* Waivers : thankfully I cannot legally waive my moral rights in my
country, but I think it is unfair to require this form any person in the
world.
While I agree to collective attribution, I share some of
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:35:21AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
this could mean that
anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly
have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any
snapshot time where someone cares to request
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to
give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you
waive all right to ownership of your edits.
This needs a safeguard to allow for email
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:42:57PM -0500, John Wilbanks wrote:
I am not speaking for CC the organization here - there have been no
conversations to my knowledge about doing a compatibility check between
ODbL and CC licensing. But, I would remind everyone that the current
official CC policy
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:58:04PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Having to grant access to pgsql data base
---
In this use case we look at someone who does nothing more than taking
OSM data and rearranging it according to fixed rules, e.g. by running it
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
sward wrote:
By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts
for review, OSMF have forced the process to involve rounds
of consultation.
It's not OSMF's licence. It is a third-party licence which OSM is
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 04:07:38PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts for
review,
I don't understand what an open development process for a legal document
would look like if not iterated drafting and comment.
There should be another
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 05:41:41AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
sward wrote:
Communications with Jordan have apparently broken down.
Mikel's e-mail of 15th Jan, which post-dates the minutes you're quoting
from, said Jordan had been involved in a meeting with them the previous day,
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:33:14AM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote:
I am really worried, when I see the chairman of the OSM Foundation making
these kind of oversimplified statements
Sounded like sarcasm making light of the situation to me.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:17:44AM -, Peter Miller wrote:
Thanks, a nice Use Case. I have just added it to the wiki so we can get a
legal opinion on it. This Use Case makes it clear that the use of the public
transport data must be protected …
Personally I think public transport data
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote:
With mapping data, you don't need to worry about DRM. As the world moves to
a net-based economy, commercial service providers will be able to restrict
you from viewing / downloading their maps whole sale.
/me awaits the Affero ODbL
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:43:17AM +0200, bvh wrote:
That is not true. As long as you base your work solely on your own data,
you are free to do with it as you seek. Even after having uploaded it
under the proposed license.
(Not taking into account how the licence sees it at all.)
Not really,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 07:36:08AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
Richard wrote: One thing I really love about OSM is the pragmatic,
un-political
approach: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create our own and
you can shove it.
(I don’t see Richard’s original email, so I’ll reply
I’m just going to pick up on one generalisation, and not really
contribute that much to the actual topic, excuse me:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:25:09PM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
… Almost as if to reinforce it, they capitalise the F
in freedom;
I don’t capitalise “free software”, or
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote:
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if
we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments.
Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don’t relicense
stuff (at least not without much
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote:
Personally I'd be very happy to see the discussion of PD continue on
the talk list but a mailing list seems a very minor resource compared
to the time and effort that have gone into the creating the new
license.
I see the PD route
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:17:35AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote:
I intended to have an overlay on my map which showed bus stops. This
data would be collected from the local bus company.
Under the old license, I couldn't use OSM because I couldn't share the
overlay. It might not have been a
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:17:50AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has
already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests
used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Could I please ask
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:05:23PM -0700, Mikel Maron wrote:
If this were about code, the belief would be that every time someone compiled
that code into running software, that binary would need to be freely
available. Clearly not the reasonable thing for software. But you would have
this
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Dair Grant wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their
source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people.
...
The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:23:45PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some
kind of doomsday scenario you would be stranded with only the derived
product and no access to the real thing, that's why he wants the derived
product
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 02:34:48AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
How will the potential
user know whether the data you entered is just fact, or the result of a
complex approximation that took you a day's work?
The short answer is the user doesn’t;
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:48:07AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the
martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the
dataset has merely been processed into a different format.
Merely processing into a
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 07:26:05AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
I can think of three types of material changes that we would want
contributed back to OSM:
[1] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the accuracy of a Feature
geometry.
[2] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 06:20:32PM +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
I cannot speak for everyone, but I do think that the general idea is to make
the ODbL work like a copyleft license (i.e. you're required to distribute
the source data only to the people you distribute the maps to). You'll
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:09:09AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If
someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS
without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 01:37:19AM +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
I believe many contributions would deserve some protection in their own
right, they’re not simply “facts”. How will this be handled?
Well, my point of view is that individual bits of OSM data are indeed facts.
Could you
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:57:08PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I had the same thoughts when reading the text, but later it says that
the data can be used by anyone for any purpose as long as they comply
with attribution and sharing requirements, and with that proviso I think
it is ok (and
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 03:52:54PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
I have added the brief to the wiki here. Notice that I have also created a
'Use Cases' section heading where we can add key example uses of the data
which we can use to validate the final licence.
99 matches
Mail list logo
