On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
wrote:
...why should the onus of forking be
on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones
On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run the
servers) agrees with the license change, why should the onus of forking be on
the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones who
should
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
How does one decliner-changeset in the
middle of a chain of accepter-changestes effect the future data if the
decliner made one position change, and subsequent editors made further
position changes?
I'd say usually it
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the
last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter positioned it
anywhere in the history, delete
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the
last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
accepter was modified by an accepter, make the modification.
What's the identity of the tag though, is
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
accepter was modified by
In the implementation plan under phase 4 it asks Final cut-off. Community
Question... What do we do with the people who have Declined or not
responded? [1]
In order to speed up the final phases of the implementation plan, and in
particular the move from PHASE 4 to DONE, would it be best to
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:59 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
In the implementation plan under phase 4 it asks Final cut-off. Community
Question... What do we do with the people who have Declined or not
responded? [1]
In order to speed up the final phases of the implementation
my question is, why dont you just make a fork for the new license and
leave the rest of us to continue in peace? get the new system working
and then we can talk about it.
mike
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
+1
Eric Jarvies
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 29, 2010, at 8:22 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
my question is, why dont you just make a fork for the new license and
leave the rest of us to continue in peace? get the new system working
and then we can
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:22 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
my question is, why dont you just make a fork for the new license and
leave the rest of us to continue in peace? get the new system working
and then we can talk about it.
mike
This
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
...why should the onus of forking be
on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones who
should fork are those for CC-BY-SA 2.0.
because the license change is not going to work in the first
14 matches
Mail list logo
