Hi
Actually, I think that's the beauty of the proposal. In England and Wales, a
designated= tag like the ones suggested
Will automatically define even multi-user ways as the law is quite clear on
this. Thus
Designated=public_footpath automatically means designated for pedestrians
only.
Designa
Norbert Hoffmann schrieb:
> Mario Salvini wrote:
>
>
>> So
>>
>> highway=path + bicycle=designated + motor_vehicle=yes
>>
>
> is nonsense. If anything, it could be highway=track ...
>
>
>> is not a so unworldly situation out there.
>>
>
> And even then this is not the "bicycle-stree
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are
putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better
spent doing something more useful.
JOSM's preset puts it in as 'yes' (and that's what nearly everyone was
doing when I started). Who's to say what the
David Earl wrote:
> I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
> are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
> would be better spent doing something more useful.
Eek - people are really doing this?
'yes' is English (and, as you say, in the editor prese
True/false and Yes/No both give the same meaning to oneway, so there's
only debate if the value should be leaning towards human- or machine
readability. Personally I would lean towards human, shame on any
programmer who's software cannot parse yes/no values.
What would really add additional in
> David Earl wrote:
> > I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
> > are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
> > would be better spent doing something more useful.
Well, JOSM->search->type:way oneway:true
A nice way to rest my brain.
> Who's to sa
> True/false and Yes/No both give the same meaning to oneway, so there's
> only debate if the value should be leaning towards human- or machine
> readability. Personally I would lean towards human, shame on any
> programmer who's software cannot parse yes/no values.
>
> What would really add ad
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
>> David Earl wrote:
>> > I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
>> > are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
>> > would be better spent doing something more useful.
>
> Well, JOSM->search->type:way oneway:true
> A nice
> Someone replied, asking:
>
> > Eek - people are really doing this?
>
> You replied:
>
> > I am
>
> I thought you were arguing for changing oneway=true to oneway=yes,
> which is the opposite of what David describes.
>
> Ed
Ooops, mis-read that, but still my point stands, I don't care about
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
wrote:
>> What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
>> These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
>> the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag.
> I don't,
> If I'm then in an editwar with Sylvain
We won't need that because I use yes/no too (mis-read the david email),
> , I hope we can do it face to face
> with some wine and cheese ;)
but let me know when you'll come to France, I'll keep a bottle and some
terrible stinking cheese so we can still
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:36:18 +0100 (CET), "Maarten Deen"
wrote:
> Whatever it is going to be: it would be nice if the validator plugin in
> JOSM
> will accept this. Currently it's programmed to accept yes/no as a proper
> tag
> and true/false is flagged as incorrect.
> That's why I change these ta
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:37:30AM +0100, Elena of Valhalla wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
> wrote:
> >> What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
> >> These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
> >> the w
Am Freitag 27 Februar 2009 schrieb sly (sylvain letuffe):
> > Who's to say what the right answer is when there
> > is no right answer.
>
> I pretend to know and say (again) that the right answer is not to have
> duplicate tags for the same meaning.
>
right!
as a software developer, I would prefer
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:19:53 -0500 (EST), si...@mungewell.org wrote:
>> Can anyone give me any tips on how to take a simple table of data with a
>> figure
>> for each coordinate, and turn it into a heat map? At first I thought of
>> GeoCommons but it seems you can only use pre-processed data with
> no
> false
> 0
> -1
> all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
> oneway-tag).
Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road ;-)
Don't want to be droven on an "undefined" or "other" or "maybe" oneway
Europe counts :
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:55:26 +0100, "sly (sylvain letuffe)"
wrote:
>> no
>> false
>> 0
>> -1
>> all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have
>> a
>> oneway-tag).
>
> Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road
> ;-)
>
> Don't want to b
On Friday 27 February 2009 12:06, you wrote:
> A good way would obviously be to change the map features and then the
> mapnik and osmarender stylesheets. As much as we like it or not, the
> rendered map is a big incensitive to tag one way (no pun intended) or
> another.
> Renaud.
Looks like Ed wa
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
>> no
>> false
>> 0
>> -1
>> all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
>> oneway-tag).
>
> Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road ;-)
>
> Don't want to be droven on an "undefined" or "other" or "mayb
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:15:11 +0100, "sly (sylvain letuffe)"
wrote:
> On Friday 27 February 2009 12:06, you wrote:
>> A good way would obviously be to change the map features and then the
>> mapnik and osmarender stylesheets. As much as we like it or not, the
>> rendered map is a big incensitive to
> The opposite is true. "undefined" it is either a oneway=true or not.
True, we know nothing with "undefined".
> In both cases I am allowed to drive it like a oneway=true and it
> is the safest thing to do
Safety is not engaged in considering a default to yes, but that's what you
could do on any
Hi!
Lambertus schrieb:
> What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
> These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
> the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag.
Actually, it would convey less information.
Tech
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Grant Slater wrote:
> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
>
> The working group have put much effort in to
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:24 PM, wrote:
> I guess the tagwatch-posting made all talking about preferences pointless.
> Mappers clearly favor "yes" and "no".
that's (probably) not a mapper choice, that's the josm preset
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
homepage: http://www.trueelena.org
email: elena.
Hi!
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
> Just a note:
> As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
> Salesman
> navigation system (case ignored):
> no
> false
> 0
> -1
> all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
> oneway-tag).
So
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop wrote:
> marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
>> Just a note:
>> As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
>> Salesman
>> navigation system (case ignored):
>> no
>> false
>> 0
>> -1
>> all other values are ignored and treated
Sly:
> Looks like Ed was faster than me doing it on the wiki. Also I
> would have
> prefered a bit of talking since some people seams to prefere
> 1/0 rather than
> yes/no
I meant to change it when we discussed it last in the doctors/doctor
thread. At some point in the past before I started mappi
Dave Stubbs schrieb:
> 2009/2/26 Pieren :
>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>>
>>> highway=path is a single track wheres highway=track is a dual track.
>>>
>>>
>> ???
>>
>> Look at the wiki definition of track:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:hig
On Thursday 26 February 2009 21:02:37 you wrote:
> > I had run it previously - I now recall that after the error in make, I
> > ran make again and did not get any error. So I thought it was ok. This
> > time also, running make the second time did not give any error. The
> > mod_tile is from the svn
> thread. At some point in the past before I started mapping it had
> been updated to yes/no/-1
The wiki's history might prove my guilt. But I wasn't aware of
polls(voting?)/discussion needed to make such changes.
When someone came to undo my changes, I realized I failed to follow
the "process"
On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote:
> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the
> new
> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
>
Thank you for your work to date; c
> lots of footways or cycleways are even wide enought to catch 2
> 4-wheeled-vehicles next to each other but they are both still
> "path+attributes" per definition. The indication of being a path has
> nothing to do with the way's width.
Hi Mario,
IMO we don't tag ways according to their widest p
Hi!
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop wrote:
>> marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
>>> Just a note:
>>> As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
>>> Salesman
>>> navigation system (case ignored):
>>> no
>>> false
>
The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the wiki
history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that review has been
made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then no edits for a month).
I've grabbed a copy of that page and will insert the review comments i
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió:
> all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
> oneway-tag).
Reversible lanes on a separated carriageway...
--
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega
Aviso: Este e-mail e
On 27 Feb 2009, at 12:26, Mike Collinson wrote:
> The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the
> wiki history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that
> review has been made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then
> no edits for a month). I've grab
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:36:23 +0100, Iván Sánchez Ortega
wrote:
> El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com
> escribió:
>> all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have
>> a
>> oneway-tag).
>
> Reversible lanes on a separated carriageway...
That
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió:
> That is not something a routing enging can work with anyway
> as there is no rule as to when this is oneway=true and when this it
> oneway=-1.
Agreed. It should be avoided unless you are starting (or re-calculating) the
Grant Slater writes:
>
> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
I am sure that this is going to be fun. Legal adviser makes
It looks like we finally got some kind of "License plan" for the step
towards the new license, so everyone check
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
Let me start with the obvious questions first:
* why don't you split between the votes whether you like lic
Hi,
I'll comment on various other aspects later but:
Ben Laenen wrote:
> And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to it by
> someone that didn't give approval, the only thing you can do is remove
> the relation as it was derived from CC-BY-SA data. Goodbye to your
>
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'll comment on various other aspects later but:
>
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to
> > it by someone that didn't give approval, the only thing you can do
> > is remove the relat
1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to
find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did
the upload of their data just have to tick "I agree" on their behalf
when they next log-in after the change?
2: For imported datasets where we checked compatibi
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:55 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
wrote:
> Europe counts :
> oneway | count
> +
> no;yes | 2
We have elves contributing?
___
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:05, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Grant Slater writes:
>
>>
>> The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
>> completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the
>> new
>> proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
>
On the aerial photography for the Gaza Strip there are areas where
there are tank tracks over some farming areas. Personally I have not
been mapping these because I don't consider them as permanent
features. At least one mapper is including them, for example here (to
straight lines are the
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:19, Ben Laenen wrote:
> On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>I'll comment on various other aspects later but:
>>
>> Ben Laenen wrote:
>>> And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to
>>> it by someone that didn't give approva
To be clear, personal views, not the licensing work group...
Ben Laenen wrote:
> It looks like we finally got some kind of "License plan" for the step
> towards the new license, so everyone check
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
>
Read the full annou
On Friday 27 February 2009, Peter Miller wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
> Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own
> :)
I think this discussion is important enough to take place on the talk
mailing list. If it's held on th
Nop wrote:
> On the other hand, the way I understood it OSM was a global
> initative and is happy for every additional mapper. If this is the
> goal, we need structures that you can understand and properly use
> without a degree in computer science.
A good general principle: we should always o
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
> Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
At what point do we then intend to include those people who are not
interested in legal?
Is it safe to assume that anyone who
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:40:44 -0800 (PST), Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
> If we produce a wonderful world map but developers have to jump through a
> few hoops to use it, a) we have a wonderful world map, therefore b)
people
> will - and are doing - produce the tools that jump through the hoops.
>
> I
Ben Laenen wrote:
> There's exactly one way to be sure this won't happen: get
> approval of *all* the people who've been editing OSM. And with
> a number of around 100.000 mappers I'm very skeptical that
> you'll be able to manage that.
Not true (IMO at least).
We have 100,000 _registered_us
On Friday 27 February 2009, Grant Slater wrote:
> Read the full announcement in all its glory:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001
>958.html
>
> Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement.
I keep disagreeing. This is important enough to
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping.
Yes Richard, but some things are best done in the editors. It's much
easier for editors to highlight obvious mistakes, than it is for every
single tool out there t
marcus.wolschon wrote:
> Actually it's the other way around.
> We have tens of thousands of mappers
> but are lacking developers on every corner.
Nah. We don't have enough developers on the OSM core site, but that's
immaterial in this context. The ecosystem, however, is thriving. There isn't
a da
Nic Roets wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
>> A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping.
>
> Yes Richard, but some things are best done in the editors. It's
> much easier for editors to highlight obvious mistakes, than it is
> for e
Chris Hill wrote:
> Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just
> discuss among a cosy few. When I tried to join legal (out of
> interest) I could not.
It's not a closed list - it's open to anyone and you can, of course, read on
the web or via Nabble. If you try to join a
On 27 Feb 2009, at 14:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-
>> talk? Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of
>> our own :)
>
> At what point do we then intend to include those people who ar
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:08, Peter Miller wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
> Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
Why do the non-lawyers need to go to the lawyers if they're making
proposals that impact everyone in
Peter Miller escribió:
> On the aerial photography for the Gaza Strip there are areas where
> there are tank tracks over some farming areas. Personally I have not
> been mapping these because I don't consider them as permanent
> features. At least one mapper is including them, for example her
On 27 Feb 2009, at 15:05, Chris Hill wrote:
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-
>> talk? Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of
>> our own :)
>>
>>
> Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just
>
2009/2/27 Richard Fairhurst :
>
> Ben Laenen wrote:
>> There's exactly one way to be sure this won't happen: get
>> approval of *all* the people who've been editing OSM. And with
>> a number of around 100.000 mappers I'm very skeptical that
>> you'll be able to manage that.
>
> Not true (IMO at lea
Peter Miller wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
> Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
>
>
Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just discuss
among a cosy few. When I tried to join legal (out
Just out of curiosity: If the CC-by-SA license give the copyright to all
contributors, then who is to decide what stays in the database and what
is removed. Also who has the right to require a change to a new license?
Is it the person who owns the server? Is it OSMF? Steve Coast as founder
perh
On Friday 27 February 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> And even if you take the ultra cautious approach and say all edits
> are deserving of copyright protection, you can still draw a line
> around minor edits both temporal and spatial ie: a single edit can
> only possibly infect edits made after it, and
>If someone has put one church on the map, or removed an 'n' from 'Avennue',
>or even just done the uncreative monkey-work of tracing over Yahoo imagery,
I take exception to this. I have spent many a long winter night (over two
winters!) adding almost all the lakes and rivers of Peru to OSM (for
David Lynch wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:08, Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
>> Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
>>
>
> Why do the non-lawyers need to go to the lawyers if they're ma
Please translate and pass on to the country-specific lists...
Follow-up discussion best suited on
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk or the avenues
discussed in this announcement.
-
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
>Even in the UK, which follows the "sweat of the brow" principle (i.e. copyright
>can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs to
>be significant.
Sorry I meant to add at the end of my previous email - what I was saying is
that tracing of satellite
imagery can be signi
Hi,
Lambertus wrote:
> Just out of curiosity: If the CC-by-SA license give the copyright to all
> contributors, then who is to decide what stays in the database and what
> is removed.
Ultimately this will be the person operating the database (server). You
can of course always operate your own
On Friday 27 February 2009 15:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
> > Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
> > Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
Peter, you'r not alone, I'm with you !
> At what point do we
2009/2/27 Ben Laenen :
> On Friday 27 February 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>> And even if you take the ultra cautious approach and say all edits
>> are deserving of copyright protection, you can still draw a line
>> around minor edits both temporal and spatial ie: a single edit can
>> only possibly in
Hi!
sly (sylvain letuffe) schrieb:
>
>> The license change is no longer a boring legal affair,
> It has, and always will be, in the eyes of the majority.
>
> The best that can be done IMHO is to warn the maximum possible users, but
> don't force anyone to follow the discussion he is not inter
Hi!
Grant Slater schrieb:
> Read the full announcement in all its glory:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001958.html
>
> Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement.
>
I disagree. This matter is important enough that it should be anno
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:40, OJ W wrote:
> 1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to
> find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did
> the upload of their data just have to tick "I agree" on their behalf
> when they next log-in after the change?
>
>
The legal council response to Use Case 1 says (in part) 'The ODbL
imposes no license restrictions on the Produced Works, although it
does restrict reverse engineering the Produced Work in order to re-
create the Database and place it under a different license.'
This says clearly that there
Hello,
I'm working on a project for a DC-based technology consulting firm
called Development Seed. Our clients are international development
organizations and humanitarian relief agencies, many of whom work in
Africa. We're excited about using Open Street Map for a number of
projects in
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Lambertus wrote:
> > If we change to the new license then do we have a tool available
> > that will remind me of the bits that are going to be rolled back
> > because of my contribution being dependent on someone who did not
> > agree to the licens
>
>>
>> This announce as been made, I'd perfer you to continue talking
>> about it on
>> legal.
>
> The legal details can be discussed on legal. But the matter of
> informing
> or rather not informing the people concerned by this fits right here.
>
I think that makes a lot of sense. I really wa
Hi,
Ben Laenen wrote:
> I care about whether the database will still
> be "clean" after a possible change (meaning, properly licensed).
The current license is anything but "properly licensed".
If you take a *strict* view then we're all violating CC-BY-SA every day
by not listing every individu
Celso González writes:
> I dont understand the -1 or reserved value, what that means?
> one way yes/true/1 but in the opposite direction of the way?
Exactly.
Matthias
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinf
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > I care about whether the database will still
> > be "clean" after a possible change (meaning, properly licensed).
>
> The current license is anything but "properly licensed".
At least it's under one license, and no-on
On 27/02/2009 16:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> If we change to the new license then do we have a tool available that
>> will remind me of the bits that are going to be rolled back because of
>> my contribution being dependent on someone who did not agree to the
>> license? I would like to know whi
Celso González writes:
> I dont understand the -1 or reserved value, what that means?
> one way yes/true/1 but in the opposite direction of the way?
Matthias confirmed:
> Exactly.
"-yes" anyone?
Perhaps this should be oneway=forward/no/backward (where forward and backward
are relative to t
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Ed Loach wrote:
> "-yes" anyone?
please no, it's even less intuitive than -1
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
homepage: http://www.trueelena.org
email: elena.valha...@gmail.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
ht
Donald Allwright wrote:
>>Even in the UK, which follows the "sweat of the brow" principle (i.e.
copyright
>>can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs
to
>>be significant.
>
> Sorry I meant to add at the end of my previous email - what I was saying
> is that
> tracin
Ben Laenen wrote:
> As long as there's no answer to it [...]
> I wouldn't even accept [...]
> I would refuse [...]
> I want a very detailed answer [...]
> that's really not my concern [...]
Hey, this is a collaborative project. No-one is being paid for this.
You could, you know, even _help_.
ch
Hi,
Ben Laenen wrote:
> Ugh, and here I thought people in the FOSS world actually cared about
> proper use of licenses.
Well if it were my call...
> Here's one: why not proposing to put it all under a proprietary license,
> and also relicense the works of those that you can't get an answer
>
OSM2Go now automagically flips oneway tags, tags on ways like foo:left
and foo:right, and forward and backward members in relations when the
user reverses a way. Better explain what we do for oneway somewhere,
this might as well be it.
We inherit JOSM's presets system, so we use whatever
UI-wise
On Friday 27 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > As long as there's no answer to it [...]
> > I wouldn't even accept [...]
> > I would refuse [...]
> > I want a very detailed answer [...]
> > that's really not my concern [...]
>
> Hey, this is a collaborative project. No
Given that the purpose of this license is to allow use, copying,
modifying, and redistribution, why is it phrased as only allowing you
to Use the database, and then redefining Use in a different section to
mean copying, modifying, and redistribution?
Shouldn't the first paragraph of S3.1 be reada
Add this question/point to the wiki!
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible "share-alike"
licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works
derived from more than one already existing free work.
While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or
BSD-like license, I would have at least ho
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible "share-alike"
> licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works
> derived from more than one already existing free work.
>
> While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or
> BS
> This will be a particular problem if this happened with someone who made
> lots of changes and then went off in a huff for some reason.
What about data donated by varous organizations? In these cases, the
user that uploaded them usually just "merely" converted the data from
another format (pos
2009/2/27 Philipp Klaus Krause :
> It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible "share-alike"
> licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works
> derived from more than one already existing free work.
>
> While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or
Hi,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> What license would our data be under? Would it
> be under no license because it's factual data that cannot be
> copyrighted?
Grant wrote:
> OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the Factual Information
> License http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I think it's pretty unarguable that, in the UK, your tracing of the
> Peruvian
> lakes would merit copyright or similar protection (as "sweat-of-the-brow").
Both the UK "sweat-of-the-brow" and the Norwegian (and Dutch?) protection
of a
Anybody else having trouble with cyclemap at z18?
For me, this link delivers only a blank white map area. The browser
claims to have finished loading. Right-clicking on the map area does
not offer view image.
I've tried this on Firefox/Linux and Epiphany/Linux and another
browser/wine.
htt
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
