Hi Tom,
Where do I find the sysadmin policy for evaluating whether a blocking
request is considered „unreasonable“?
There isn't one. I'm not entirely sure what it would say if it existed
as it is hard to write such things down in concrete terms as it is by
definition a very subjective
On 11/07/11 09:20, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
If you have a better way of defining active contributor that is
workable then please tell us what it is.
I see no reason to limit the voting right to people who fit the definition of
active contributors.
The main reason is that otherwise it
Hi Kai,
One could have given voting rights to all people who have once reached
active contributor status and retain sufficient interest in the project
to keep their email address up to date and respond to the vote within 3
weeks.
I agree.
However, Frederick is correct, that this kind of
Hi tom,
The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible
to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an
ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested
and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in
On 11/07/11 09:35, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
Hi tom,
The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible
to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an
ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested
and/or contactable and once
Hi Tom,
Sure they won't be able to edit now until they accept, but we consider
that a reasonable step to try and move forward with the licensing process.
OK, then let me rephrase my concern using your language: „The CT make the
voting right dependent upon being able to edit. This gives the
On 29/06/11 15:59, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
Hi Tom,
Asking us to block everybody for six months so a vote could be rigged
would clearly be unreasonable and would be ignored.
Where do I find the sysadmin policy for evaluating whether a blocking request
is considered „unreasonable“?
Hi,
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I once made a constructive proposal for one potential way to fix the problem,
which was met both with well-grounded criticism and with personal attacks.
Care to point out the latter?
If I were to say that I'm beginning to think you must have a very skewed
: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
Hi,
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I once made a constructive proposal for one potential way to fix the problem,
which was met both with well-grounded criticism and with personal attacks
Tom Hughes-3 wrote:
If you have a better way of defining active contributor that is
workable then please tell us what it is.
One could have given voting rights to all people who have once reached
active contributor status and retain sufficient interest in the project to
keep their email
Hi Grant,
thanks for your quick reply.
I agree with you and Frederik that the opt-out idea does not really work.
But this does not mean that my other, bigger, concerns about the CT are
invalid (listed in the email you just replied to). Note that these concerns
are directly linked to the
On 27/06/11 09:12, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I appreciate the fact that you work with TimSC. I look forward to being able
to read the page http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/
(I do not want to click Decline at the moment, because I am still undecided,
and reading this page
On 27/06/11 09:12, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
But this does not mean that my other, bigger, concerns about the CT are
invalid (listed in the email you just replied to). Note that these concerns
are directly linked to the current behavior of the sysadmin group.
Sorry, what has any of this
On 27/06/11 09:53, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
Sorry, what has any of this got to do with the sysadmins? I just revived
your previous post and it seems to be about issues with the CTs which
are an LWG concern and nothing to do with the sysadmins.
The CT make the vote dependent upon being
Hi Grant,
can I still expect a contructive reply to my email answering your question
about my concerns, or should I simply hit the „decline“ button?
Olaf
[Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer, 17.06.2011, 14:53]:
Hi Grant,
Please list the problematic language you are referring to... Your
email on
Hi,
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
can I still expect a contructive reply to my email answering your question
about my concerns, or should I simply hit the „decline“ button?
In your opinion, what would be the legal consequence of changing the
contributor terms at this point?
For example,
On 26 June 2011 17:22, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:
Hi Grant,
can I still expect a contructive reply to my email answering your question
about my concerns, or should I simply hit the „decline“ button?
Hi Olaf,
Sorry I have not had time to think through your suggestions
Hi Rob,
thanks for your long., thoughtful email.
There are a number of conflicting opinions in the OSM community:
1. Contributions to OSM should be public domain to achieve maximum usefulness.
2. The contributions to OSM should be guaranteed to never end up in
proprietary databases if these
Am 08.06.2011 18:59, schrieb Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer:
Hi Grant,
thanks for assuring me that the sysadmins have no interest in participating
in
behaviour that is harmful to the community.
Does this mean that I will not be chucked out of the community by the
sysadmins?
I am willing
Hi Dermot,
That's not a bad start - but if I play spot-the-missing-bit, it looks
to me that you aren't prepared to trust 2/3 of the community to decide
that (for reasons not yet forseen) a licence other than the two you
list and which may not be copyleft/sharealike.
Please note that the CT
On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:
Please note that the CT do not guarantee a 2/3 majority of the community. Only
a part of the community is entitled to vote.
I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
objection to addressing
2011/6/17 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com:
On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:
I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of active
contributor.
If we take the voting issues
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb:
The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to
contribute.
It it defined anywhere what contribute means? I have heard statements
before that sending messages, e.g. in here, also counts as a
contribution, as does replying to a
-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
2011/6/17 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com:
On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:
I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of active
On 2011-06-08 03:25, David Groom wrote:
Why do you and some others think that the majority of the contributors
are dumb sheeps who will sign everything?
1) Because I've seen postings to various OSM emailing lists along the
lines of:
(i) I trust OSM to get it right and so I just agreed to the
Hi Grant,
thanks for assuring me that the sysadmins have no interest in participating in
behaviour that is harmful to the community.
Does this mean that I will not be chucked out of the community by the
sysadmins?
I am willing to grant the OSFM + 2/3 of the community the right to relicense
On 08/06/11 17:59, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
the claim that
everyone who likes the Share-Alike-principle is a fanatic.
I'm certainly a copyleft fanatic, but I'm sure there are some entirely
reasonable copyleft proponents as well.
- Rob.
___
Hi,
Grant Slater wrote:
On 8 June 2011 17:59, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:
If I am correctly informed, then there are no plans to change the problematic
language in the CT, and the sysadmins have no plans to allow me to keep
contributing. Or am I missing something?
Dermot,
Dermot McNally wrote:
I am willing to grant the OSFM + 2/3 of the community the right to relicense
my contributions in the following ways:
* the current versions of the ODbL and/or of the CC-BY-SA,
* all past and future versions of the ODbL and/or of the CC-BY-SA,
* all licenses that
Frederik Ramm frederik@... 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
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
On Tuesday, 7 June 2011, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com 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
On 7 June 2011 09:35, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm frederik@... 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
Grant Slater openstreetmap@... 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
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Grant Slater openstreetmap@... 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
Matt Amos zerebubuth@... 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
On 07/06/11 12:37, Ed Avis wrote:
Matt Amos zerebubuth@... 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
On 7 June 2011 14:35, Anthony o...@inbox.org 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
2011/6/7 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
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
Matt Amos zerebubuth@... 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
On 7 June 2011 15:20, Anthony o...@inbox.org 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
[mailto:derm...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:53 PM
Aan: Anthony
CC: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 7 June 2011 15:20, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Of 8,402,321 people eligible to vote, 8,357,560, or 99.5
2011/6/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
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
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
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM, john wilbanks
wilba...@creativecommons.org 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
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 than you
- Original Message -
From: Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
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 Rammfrederik
I have no intention of getting into a debate about whether ODBL is the
best licence for OSM data here. However, I do feel the need to correct
one very important factual point regarding the Contributor Terms.
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 06:20 +0200, Mike Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
This
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.
What is upsetting for me is that there is no porting process like with
creative commons, and any leverage one might have will be lost when
you agree to the CT.
OK, you
49 matches
Mail list logo
