On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Renaud MICHEL
wrote:
> Le samedi 28 août 2010 à 11:14, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com a écrit :
>> The problem is that we got data also from some GIS companies who
>> wanted non commercial only. The cc protected them in some way. I will
>> have to go back and rewo
> Le samedi 28 août 2010 à 11:14, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com a écrit
> :
>> The problem is that we got data also from some GIS companies who
>> wanted non commercial only. The cc protected them in some way. I will
>> have to go back and rework all the contracts.
>
> (as this is legal-talk, I
Le samedi 28 août 2010 à 11:14, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com a écrit :
> The problem is that we got data also from some GIS companies who
> wanted non commercial only. The cc protected them in some way. I will
> have to go back and rework all the contracts.
(as this is legal-talk, I must say tha
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 27 August 2010 10:28, Rob Myers wrote:
>> On 08/27/2010 04:43 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> I would like to know if the new license is compatible with the old one.
>>> will we be able to use CC-SA-2.0 licensed data or
On 08/27/2010 04:43 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if the new license is compatible with the old one.
will we be able to use CC-SA-2.0 licensed data or we will have to get
new contracts with the donators of data?
for example, we have gotten much of the data
Hello,
I would like to know if the new license is compatible with the old one.
will we be able to use CC-SA-2.0 licensed data or we will have to get
new contracts with the donators of data?
for example, we have gotten much of the data for Kosovo donated under
written contract for CC-SA-20, many us
