On 2 September 2010 05:14, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find
> something inappropriate.
I've made several comments that you do like wise, you keep claiming
this change is needed to make OSM more free, but that's dishonest
because it will on
John,
there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find
something inappropriate.
For example this:
John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 21:21, Rob Myers wrote:
"The devil is in the details."
CT+ODBL has a lot of fine print...
is just unsuitable for a "debate" (your
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The clause 3 in the
> contributor terms is precisely there because we want to *avoid* speaking for
> people in the future. Anyone arguing against that basically says: "Well of
> course you can chan
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Contrary to what John seems to believe, I would be quite content with the
> new license - not exactly "in love with it", but "content" is a good word I
> think
When did you come to that conclusion, and why? Weren't you opposed to
the license
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
> The OSMF are
> OpenStreetMap contributors.
However
OpenStreetMap contributors != OSMF
because OSMF is a subset of contributors
(although being a contributor is not a prerequisite, so this may not be
completely true).
On 1 September 2010 19:59, Andy Allan wrote:
> My comments have nothing to do with the "debate" or any issues you
Then perhaps you should have used another thread with a more
appropriate subject line to avoid confusion?
> My comments are intended to address your disruptive behaviour on the
> wik
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:43 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 19:38, Andy Allan wrote:
>> Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be
>> mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even
>> inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, an
On 1 September 2010 19:38, Andy Allan wrote:
> Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be
> mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even
> inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging
> yourself on to annoy everyone even more. It's
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 19:22, Andy Allan wrote:
>> And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major
>
> Shhh don't mention the thread on the tagging list about this, it might
> distract people
>
>> changes behind the "min
On 1 September 2010 19:22, Andy Allan wrote:
> And wage a campaign of reverting pages on the wiki[1], or hiding major
Shhh don't mention the thread on the tagging list about this, it might
distract people
> changes behind the "minor edit" flag[2]. And the seemingly
Which minor edit(s) were
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:12:21 -0400, Richard Weait
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides
>> not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing
>> started it's been nothing but dirty trick
On 1 September 2010 19:12, Richard Weait wrote:
> Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL
Is this like all the laywers that think the ODBL is great too?
about 12,500 contributors make up about 99% of the data, how many of
those agree with your point of view, or is t
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides
>> not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing
>> started it's been nothing but dirty tricks t
On 1 September 2010 19:07, Rob Myers wrote:
> If you don't want the effects of a PD OSM for geodata, ODbL is a better way
> of ensuring this than BY-SA
"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't"
At this stage I have every reason to believe the CT and now possible
the ODBL is a reall
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides
> not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing
> started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license
> changed.
No, JohnSmith, still yo
On 09/01/2010 09:37 AM, John Smith wrote:
At least be honest about it, the CTs as they read now, basically state
OSM is likely to become PD in future,
No they don't. They basically state that people's freedom to use OSM
won't be wiped out by changes in the outside world in the future.
Yes,
On 1 September 2010 18:46, Richard Weait wrote:
> On the other hand, six-ish years ago there was no concern that we
> would have to be compatible with OS data. Now, they publish open data
And how compatible will the CTs be with OS data exactly?
___
le
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:15 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frederik's argument that we cannot predict what future generations will want
> is quite fallacious.
Really? What will future generations want, 80n? I predict that
future generations will want "Flying cars" sure, but we were promised
On 1 September 2010 18:30, Richard Weait wrote:
> Still in OppositeLand, JohnSmith?
Can't figure out any better insults?
> The Contributor Terms trust future OSM contributors to make the right
> choices for future OSM licenses. Do you trust current and future OSM
At least be honest about it, th
On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, 80n wrote:
Nobody is saying that CC-BY-SA is perfect.
But they are saying that it is unsuitable.
It isn't but it works. Look at how quickly Waze reacted. Not bad for
a broken license, eh?
Rely on people's good intentions is not a general solution.
The great thing
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:01 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait wrote:
>> That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are "are trying to
>> speak for both people now and people in the future" in the very same
>> breath is bold. You know perfectly well that te
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith
> wrote:
> > On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >> only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they
> choose
> >> today will automatically be the best license for
On 1 September 2010 18:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM
As I've stated in the past, which you conveniently keep ignoring, over
looking or "misunderstanding"...
You are putting end users of the data ahead of contributors, imho t
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose
today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time.
The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are
tellin
On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait wrote:
> That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are "are trying to
> speak for both people now and people in the future" in the very same
> breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the
> decision on future licenses to futu
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:35 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose
>> today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time.
>
> The sheer arrogance of all this is as
On 1 September 2010 17:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> only the most presumptuous person would believe that a license they choose
> today will automatically be the best license for the project for all time.
The sheer arrogance of all this is astounding, you and others are
telling all the current contr
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith wrote:
John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an
Apostle of the 'new license'.
I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be
content with the license...
Thank you both for be
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:10 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith wrote:
> > I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later!
>
> Did you have a good flight from Germany?
>
Yar I ist eating mine fritter John.
can you explainen the distruptnik of the community again
On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith wrote:
> I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later!
Did you have a good flight from Germany?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:59 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith wrote:
> > But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to
> > spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be
> > brought down?
>
> Tip for next time, be les
On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith wrote:
> But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to
> spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be
> brought down?
Tip for next time, be less overt, it allows the ruse to go on for
longer before others
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie
> Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz:
> >> I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
> >> not the other way around.
> >
> > At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
> > Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for Mar
On 1 September 2010 16:04, Jane Smith wrote:
> John Smith and I know the Truth. Frederik's books should be burnt. He is an
> Apostle of the 'new license'.
I would have said apostle of the CT because I highly doubt he'll be
content with the license...
_
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:12 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem.
>
> But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true
> answer.
>
Yes, the True Answer as John and I k
On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem.
But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true answer.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.o
Hi,
80n wrote:
An ODbL fork would not have same rights to the data as OSMF would have.
It would be a somewhat asymmetrical fork. You cannot fork the substance
of the contributor terms.
True, but I believe this discussion was about whether you can fork the
future ODbL OSM without having to
On 08/31/2010 03:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure that Marxist views on copyright are necessarily trolling,
however capitalized, but they are a bit off topic for a list about bourgeois
law. ;-)
The fact that I chose to quote that line and not any of the others was
my way of ignoring and not
On 08/31/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
So that's all allowed? Okay then. Let the games begin. I can create
a few extra gmail accounts to troll the list with too.
I think it's more that we should ignore (people who we think are)
obvious trolls.
I'm not sure that Marxist views on copyright
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence
> 'Jane Smith' might have committed that would cause you to want her to be
> banned. She is clearly posting under a fake name: so are at least two other
> people h
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony:
>> What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq
>> has copyright now. May not be universal, but 99.9% of the world has
>> copyright.
>
> Iran's copyright protects only works by Iranians.
>
> Besides, what
On 30 August 2010 12:04, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
>> said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and
>> mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/w
Am 31.08.2010 12:56, schrieb Liz:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
>> Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz:
I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
not the other way around.
>>>
>>> At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
>>> Per
On 30 August 2010 10:36, Chris Browet wrote:
> As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
> data without permissions, and it is thus not truly "open":
> - with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork
> their data (or is only attribution ne
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
> Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz:
> >> I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
> >> not the other way around.
> >
> > At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
> > Perhaps you had better look back at the
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many,
> just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are
> saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL
> relicensing.
At this stage contributors aren't be
Am 31.08.2010 12:30, schrieb Liz:
>> I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
>> not the other way around.
>
> At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
> Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the
> discussion over the
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
> >> data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
> >> be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
> >
> >
> >
> > I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
> > sources, and so far no one is offer
Am 31.08.2010 06:36, schrieb Anthony:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
>> You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court
>> cases that demonstrate that it isn't.
>
> What does that mean? Copyright is not universally valid? Even Iraq
> has copyright n
Am 30.08.2010 13:43, schrieb John Smith:
> 2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
>> data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
>> be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
>
> I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
> sources, and so far no one
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:41:16AM +, Jane Smith wrote:
> copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
> Production.
>
> We all know copyright has maps. But data underneath is important so that is
> what we workers should control.
No copyright was the true reason fo
espond to them. Whether I or anyone else considers Jane Smith a troll isn't
the issue.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-Community-vs-Licensing-tp5475845p5481395.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Please Do Not Feed The
> Trolls.
The person who has chosen the pseudonym Jane Smith has a right to have their
point heard.
I would not consider this person to be a troll, whether or not I am the person
recalled as intending to be publicly disrupti
ling: and yes, at
least one other person here has publicly vowed (elsewhere) that they will
continue to be deliberately "disruptive" on the OSM lists.
I'd suggest the best course of action is, as ever, Please Do Not Feed The
Trolls.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in cont
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:55 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I second that.
> Jane Smith this is a fake account, just
> causing problems.
>
I use fake account yes, like Anthony and John Smith and 80n. Fake fake fake.
We have to protect our names to
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Anthony wrote:
> Maybe we shouldn't abandon the relicensing effort, but start a new
> relicensing effort, focussed on fixing the problems with CC-BY-SA
> without adding on a dozen other special interest fixes like Produced
> Works and Contributor Terms and Contrac
I second that.
Jane Smith this is a fake account, just
causing problems.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith wrote:
>> copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
>> Production.
>
> Are there any moderators h
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith wrote:
> copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of
> Production.
Are there any moderators here?
Can we get this troll banned please.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@opens
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:21 PM, John Smith wrote:
> You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit
> of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take
> the data and just use it, but then it becomes much harder for them to
> in turn claim any sort of copyr
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> > On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
> >> to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about m
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
>> to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
>> data.
>
> You are still assuming that copyright is uni
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> With a leaky license like the CC-By-SA, the project as a whole gets the worst
> of
> both worlds, PD and share-alike.
And with ODbL, they get the worst of three worlds, PD, share-alike,
and EULA hell.
__
On 30/08/2010, at 3:24 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point
> importing,
> the OSM data is under the jurisdiction of England and has to obey
> english copyright law. no?
No, people are bound by the copyright law where th
2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
> be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
sources, and so far no one is offering to come to australia and map
the regio
Am 30.08.2010 12:16, schrieb John Smith:
> On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers wrote:
>> No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than
>> fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its
>> own authors.
>
> I care less about the license than the
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
> If OSM ends up asking governments to reduce people's freedom to use map
> data in order to restore that freedom, do you really think that would be
> a good idea?
This is a new concept on the list, that OSM starts negotiations with
governments over licensi
On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers wrote:
> No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than
> fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its
> own authors.
I care less about the license than the data, and the only way to
ensure the data is kept
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court
cases that demonstrate that it isn
2010/8/30 Morten Kjeldgaard :
> Changing the license at this point in a successful project is like building
> a house, and then deciding you want to change all the bricks because you
> don't like the colour of the old ones. Perhaps it is true that the house is
> not as pretty as it could have been,
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 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 and to what
On 30 August 2010 01:21, John Smith wrote:
>
> That's before you start considering all the various government data
> released under copyright licenses. Are you saying all their lawyers
> have no clue about copyright laws, or that the governments themselves
> aren't able to change laws to make map
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm 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 and to what he likes.
I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point
importin
On 30 August 2010 08:05, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The worst thing that could happen is the license change failing and OSMF
> afterwards pretending that we were still a share-alike project.
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has b
Hi,
Russ Nelson wrote:
> I've re-thought this, and I think that the proper course of action,
> which will do the least damage to the community, is to stay with
> CC-By-SA.
I think that this makes sense if you view it from one country alone. If you
are in the US and only concerned about the US com
Hi,
Russ Nelson wrote:
Mostly it's about community, which is why
it's here and not on le...@.
Unfortunately in my rebuttal of this I have to discuss legal stuff so
I'll do it in legal-talk and invite anybody who is interested to read it
there.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail fred
75 matches
Mail list logo
