Kevin Peat wrote:
> But isn't the bit that's causing the bulk of the discussion a limited part
> of the
> CTs, not ODbL per se?
For most people, yes, though there are a few people for whom ODbL per se is
unpalatable (I think 80n is one, but he can correct me if I'm wrong).
Personally I don't hav
Ed Avis wrote:
> Speaking for yourself, would you be content with a dual licensing or some
> other compromise to satisfy both camps?
>From a legally-minded point of view, yes. I release all my OSM work as
public domain anyway and believe that CC-BY-SA is a deeply inequitable
licence when applie
Richard Fairhurst writes:
>>Speaking for yourself, would you be content with a dual licensing or some
>>other compromise to satisfy both camps?
>From a community-minded point of view, I'm less sure. The reason I support
>ODbL is that it's a more equitable licence that fixes issues with CC-BY-S
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
> I release all my OSM work as
> public domain anyway and believe that CC-BY-SA is a deeply inequitable
> licence when applied to data.
I really don't get this. What is inequitable about CC-BY-SA? The
requirement to share-alike?
I thou
On 16 November 2010 18:23, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>> I'd personally rather have PD, but
>> the community consensus is not there for that; and if the community wishes
>> to have a share-alike licence, I'm not comfortable with recommending a
>>
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 16 November 2010 18:23, Anthony wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst
>> wrote:
>>> I'd personally rather have PD, but
>>> the community consensus is not there for that; and if the community wishes
>>> to ha
Ed Avis wrote:
> I feel the same way but I come to different conclusions because of
> different starting assumptions.
Sure. YMMV and no two people come at this with the same philosophy. My
strongly-held belief is that, just as it's generally accepted that to
discriminate against "fields of endea
Anthony wrote:
> I really don't get this.
We have been through this before. I have no interest in engaging with you -
the sole person about whom I'll say that after six years in this project -
as a result of the ad hominem you resorted to last time round. I will
happily talk to Etienne, John, Liz
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Anthony wrote:
>> I really don't get this.
>
> We have been through this before. I have no interest in engaging with you
Why would you send an email to the list explaining that? By doing so
aren't you "engaging with me"?
On Tue, Nov
On 11/16/2010 07:10 PM, Anthony wrote:
Why would you send an email to the list explaining that? By doing so
aren't you "engaging with me"?
By throwing out an old sock are you not holding on to it?
I certainly have in the past pointed out your inconsistencies.
I don't remember that. Can you
Richard Fairhurst writes:
>My strongly-held belief is that, just as it's generally accepted that to
>discriminate against "fields of endeavour" with a non-commercial licence is
>not "open" (e.g. see
>http://blog.okfn.org/2010/06/24/
> why-share-alike-licenses-are-open-but-non-commercial-ones-are
On 16 November 2010 21:45, Ed Avis wrote:
>
> I think it's pretty clear that data, if derived from the OSM data, would need
> to be distributed under the same share-alike terms.
Yes under CC-BY-SA only the product created from the data. As an open
source person I value the source code (read data)
Grant Slater writes:
>>I think it's pretty clear that data, if derived from the OSM data, would need
>>to be distributed under the same share-alike terms.
>
>Yes under CC-BY-SA only the product created from the data.
I don't think this is a meaningful distinction - or else I am not understandin
13 matches
Mail list logo
