Russ,
On 05/06/11 07:25, Russ Nelson wrote:
Would you really say that personally, as far as your contributions are
concerned, you consider your I agree click to be legally void because
it happened under duress?
No, I'm saying that *everyone's* agreement is invalid because it was
On 6 May 2011 22:16, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The alternative would be to continue using CC-BY-SA in the face of
objections, and continue to misleading users about the effectiveness of the
license.
Still this sad tired old line, please come up with new FUD to keep
things
Russ Nelson writes:
I just want to map;
And as RichardF pointed out on IRC, if that's REALLY what I want, then
I ought to STFU, and leave the worrying to other people since I have
enough things to worry about, like whether my local 6 to the pixel
imagery is good enough (eat my dust!), I'm going
2011/5/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
A friend of mine recently did a lot of mapping which was then removed by
someone else in preparation for an import. Shit happens.
really? Where was that?
Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
Russ,
(I'm trying to move this over to legal-talk because you are
expressing an interesting legal viewpoint):
On 05/05/11 06:27, Russ Nelson wrote:
I'm wondering on what data you come to that conclusion? Because people
have clicked ok on the license change and CTs? And yet there is no
Frederik Ramm writes:
On 05/05/11 06:27, Russ Nelson wrote:
I'm wondering on what data you come to that conclusion? Because people
have clicked ok on the license change and CTs? And yet there is no
agreement and no contract. The OSMF has made it clear: you agree, or
we delete your
On 6 May 2011 15:25, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
has no clothes, and there are no little kids around to say Gee, this
relicensing thing ... maybe it's not such a good idea?
Plenty of people have been pointing this out, but those that should be
listening aren't and as a result OSM has
