andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> True that the information is not structured and costs a person
> putting the information on OSM a bit of "surveying" across
> wikipedia. However it wouldn't be available without the
> effort put by wikipedians into gatherting the information.
This is called "sweat
2009/1/25 Richard Fairhurst :
>
> andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is
>> the well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible
>> with sources (and consumers) using the same license. So,
>> say I've uploaded a lot of information based on
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> As long as there's any meaningful consultation - i.e. a
> consultation that at least in theory could lead to the license
> being sent back to the drawing board, as Andy Robinson put
> it - I guess I'm ok with it.
Agreed.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Rob Myers wrote:
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to
>> one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than
>> one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at
>> present).
>
> Frederik's email o
Peter Miller wrote:
> I suggest that a decision made on the basis of a vote if preferable to
> one made on the basis of who shouts loudest and is also better than
> one made 'be decree' (which is what I think is being considered at
> present).
Frederik's email of 16.40 covers what I would l
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> By all means have an optional _poll_ beforehand among people who care.
If 75% of participants in such a (public) poll say "cool, let's go ahead
with this license" then I'd say it's ok to start offering it to mappers.
If 75% say "I think this needs some more work
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is the
> well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible with sources
> (and consumers) using the same license. So, say I've uploaded a lot
> of information based on wikipedia, conscious that I'm upload
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Also a different question is bothering me. The old license is
> the well known CC-BY-SA, so it is automatically compatible
> with sources (and consumers) using the same license. So,
> say I've uploaded a lot of information based on wikipedia,
> conscious that I'm
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
> Note that Frederick is suggesting only a 'go/no go' vote without an
> option to change the document to avoid Steve's concern
Actually, I haven't even got to the stage where I was making suggestions
- I was still trying to understand what the Foundation's plans are, a
2009/1/24 Rob Myers :
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and
>> every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please
>> leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will
>> remove your data shortly'. Clearly this a
On 24 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Rob Myers wrote:
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and
>> every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please
>> leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will
>> remove your data sh
Peter Miller wrote:
> Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and
> every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please
> leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will
> remove your data shortly'. Clearly this approach will result in
On 24 Jan 2009, at 00:25, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>thank you for making the December minutes available. From them I
> see
> that you're already having your next meeting today.
>
> Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>> The licence doesn't get implemented if the vote is against its
Issues
Anyway Mikel, it a huge improvement that someone from the foundation
posts on this list regularly at all - do keep it up!
Regards,
Peter
Best,
Mikel
From: Peter Miller
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. >
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:36:47 PM
Subjec
Hi,
thank you for making the December minutes available. From them I see
that you're already having your next meeting today.
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> The licence doesn't get implemented if the vote is against its
> implementation. If that were to happen then the licence woul
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 22 January 2009 11:10 PM
>To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
>
>Hi,
>
>Mikel Maron wrote:
>> We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. Th
On 22 Jan 2009, at 23:05, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Mikel Maron :
>> Hi Fredrik
>>
>>> Will they be available to process our input after we see the text?
>>>
>>> Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the
>>> public is asked to accept the new license - will it
Hi,
Mikel Maron wrote:
> We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't
> be perfect,
> but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the
> license
> will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this
> process
>
2009/1/22 Mikel Maron :
> Hi Fredrik
>
>> Will they be available to process our input after we see the text?
>>
>> Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the
>> public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take
>> the lawyers' version and our feedback
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
> The license won't be perfect, but there will be a process for feedback and
> improvements, and the license will get there.
This phraseology sounds very businesslike. I'm sure I've heard the
"we know x is dismal but we've agreed to it anyway"
Hi Fredrik
> Will they be available to process our input after we see the text?
>
> Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the
> public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take
> the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable
Hi,
Mikel Maron wrote:
> We want to let them finish this discussion, and then the license text will be
> posted publicly.
Will they be available to process our input after we see the text?
Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the
public is asked to accept the new lic
Mikel Maron wrote:
> So what's next? A technical team meeting will be held this week
> to discuss the technical implementation. Next week we will hold
> another licensing working group meeting, where we'll produced
> the final integrated plan of license and technical process, and
> timeline fo
23 matches
Mail list logo
