On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or
>> neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM
>> is simply a database of facts,
>
> Well I for one still believe that
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Andrew wrote:
> > I hope there is no turf war brewing between Creative Commons and Open
> Data
> > Commons.
>
> I wouldn't know. On the other hand, Mike Linksvayer, from Creative
> Commons, joined the Licen
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it
> does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression
> half of the idea/expression divide.
Ugh, sorry for the imprecise language (this is why I'm thrilled CC'
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is
>> that "data should be licensed CC0", not "OSM is a databae of facts".
>
> Do you think they are also distancing
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is
> that "data should be licensed CC0", not "OSM is a databae of facts".
Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position
that scientific data shoul
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or
neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM
is simply a database of facts,
Well I for one still believe that OSM is aiming to be a database of facts.
and that therefore what's bes
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and
> 'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data
> sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but it is
> not
> di
I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and
'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data
sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but it is not
directly relevant to OSM because we are not a science project.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Andrew wrote:
> I hope there is no turf war brewing between Creative Commons and Open Data
> Commons.
I wouldn't know. On the other hand, Mike Linksvayer, from Creative
Commons, joined the License Working Group conference call on 18 Jan
2011. The discussion was
Kai Krueger writes:
> It also has a 60 entry long comment section. Although much is a rehash of
> the the endless debates on OSMs own communication channels,
> there are also a set of comments by user mlinksva from Creative Commons
> (e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/422754/) that seem to bring point
On 21/01/11 00:02, Kai Krueger wrote:
I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't
missrepresent anyone.
I am *very* glad that CC are now publicly acknowledging the harm that
Science Commons has caused.
I don't know how far CC can go with the 4.0 licences, but Mike's com
Thanks for posting this Kai. Those comments from Creative Commons look
promising.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Kai Krueger wrote:
>
> I'd like to link to a recent interesting article on the OSM licensing change
> on LWN (Linux Weekly News) as I haven't seen it be mentioned anywhere yet.
>
>
I'd like to link to a recent interesting article on the OSM licensing change
on LWN (Linux Weekly News) as I haven't seen it be mentioned anywhere yet.
http://lwn.net/Articles/422493/
It also has a 60 entry long comment section. Although much is a rehash of
the the endless debates on OSMs own co
13 matches
Mail list logo
