Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

2012-01-19 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 01/19/12 03:07, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import ODbL-incompatible data. With version

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

2012-01-19 Thread Mike Dupont
Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury for imported CC-BY-SA data again here is my statement, I am still getting spam mails from bots on accepting the license. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777 mike On Wed, Jan 18,

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

2012-01-19 Thread Andrew Harvey
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

2012-01-19 Thread Simon Poole
Am 19.01.2012 10:53, schrieb Andrew Harvey: . There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to the CTs anyway with the logic

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

2012-01-19 Thread Rob Myers
On 19/01/12 09:51, Mike Dupont wrote: Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury If you cannot accept the CTs please don't. Nobody wants you to make a false representation. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

2012-01-19 Thread Mike Dupont
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19/01/12 09:51, Mike Dupont wrote: Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury If you cannot accept the CTs please don't. Nobody wants you to make a false representation. Well then

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change

2012-01-19 Thread ant
Hi, On 18.01.2012 23:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: They are not known. A mailing list has been created (the rebuild list) to discuss how exactly the database rebuild is going to happen, and in I didn't know about that list - I'll join it. terms of policy, LWG will have the ultimate decision. And

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change

2012-01-19 Thread andrzej zaborowski
On 19 January 2012 21:48, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On 18.01.2012 23:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: They are not known. A mailing list has been created (the rebuild list) to discuss how exactly the database rebuild is going to happen, and in I didn't know about that list - I'll join it.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change

2012-01-19 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 01/19/2012 09:48 PM, ant wrote: So moving a way is not considered a modification of the way, but of the individual nodes. Yes. And changing a way's references from ABC to ACB is not a modification at all, because no reference is created and no reference is removed. We cannot say that