Le lundi 19 juillet 2010 à 18:14 +0200, Marc Coevoet a écrit :
Philippe Pary schreef:
Hello,
A mapping party will happen in Lille/Rijsel on 31th july.
It will be about micro-mapping the town zoo (which is free) and try to
have the same quality render as Berlin's zoo :-)
Les
Philippe Pary schreef:
Hello,
A mapping party will happen in Lille/Rijsel on 31th july.
It will be about micro-mapping the town zoo (which is free) and try to
have the same quality render as Berlin's zoo :-)
Les Francais du Nord, sont ils au courant??
Marc
--
What's on Shortwave guide:
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed
replacement licence.
It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F
On 19 July 2010 11:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed
replacement
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the
fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed
On 19 July 2010 21:04, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
If I follow that analogy, I can then use data from TeleAtlas if someone
breaches the contract, which is not the case. The licence is found on their
data.
Since when does contract law work that way?
The difference here is
On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in
order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the
bus. :-/
Which is what I'm curious about, what makes ODBL copyright stick if
cc-by-sa
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for
massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which
would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:33:44 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in
order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on
the
bus. :-/
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:58:25 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote:
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting,
Of the people?
The US and the
On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:04 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases
no they go much further, they say it shouldn't and that all
On Jul 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the
fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers
are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should.
Simon
--
A complex system
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the
contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given
with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they
didn't
On 19 July 2010 22:07, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map
providers
are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights.
Just because everyone else
On 19 July 2010 22:16, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case.
To the best of my knowledge,
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case.
A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:43AM +1000, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the
mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a
reference or an example to follow.
Why do we need contract law at all?
I know
On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:53 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote:
My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the
mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a
reference or an example to
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On 20 July 2010 09:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course not. But if the data is *already* public domain, then violating a
contract and making the data available doesn't take it out of the public
domain either.
Isn't breach of contract the method that was used to put the tiger
data into
On 20 July 2010 10:22, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers...
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:28 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 20 July 2010 10:22, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
I'm left wondering if this problem is
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:22 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
You could pay your own lawyer to check it then?
Steve
stevecoast.com
On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers...
Go ask on odc-discuss?
Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer?
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 19 July 2010 13:48, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.comwrote:
Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but
specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this
particular issue? ODBL looks like SA in spirit. Further changing of
licenses
Hi,
Toby Murray wrote:
There are two new changesets today on the northern coast of Russia.
Looks like he deleted 7 ways.
I have blocked the user temporarily and asked him to explain what he is
doing:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/blocks/25
Bye
Frederik
Am 18.07.2010 01:23, schrieb Esther Loeliger:
For
a screenshot and further information, see the project website,
http://team.sourceforge.net.
Despite a screenshot I don't see any information on this page - not what
the project is about nor who's working on.
So I don't know what it is
On 19/07/2010 09:28, Peter Körner wrote:
Am 18.07.2010 01:23, schrieb Esther Loeliger:
For
a screenshot and further information, see the project website,
http://team.sourceforge.net.
Despite a screenshot I don't see any information on this page - not what
the project is about nor who's
On 19/07/10 03:07, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
SteveC-2 wrote:
And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on
such counts.
If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give
them as little power as possible over the data and its
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, you wrote:
No... it slithered out from the 7th Circle of Hell, spawned by the Evil LWG
and her commander Mike of Norse.
The Brethren Thirteen (the Evil Number) hath rendered blah blah blah...
Seriously - where do you guys get off with these dark mutterings? The CT's
Hi again!
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of
ODBL).
Is
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:33:48 +0100, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on
creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
I know
On 19 July 2010 20:05, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again!
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to the
ODbL so long as everyone else does...
The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if the
majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the
Yes, sorry, here is the command and error message:
http://www.prodevelop.es/files/fm/public/downloads/wxp_console.png
Regards,
Juan Lucas
--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk]
On 17/07/10 10:00, 80n wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org
mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we
thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to
something *completely*
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes:
The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute
anything (in effect make their business easier)
Hang on a minute. Weren't we all told that the current
On 19 July 2010 22:02, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
they can get away with) think twice before appropriating OSM data, what is the
evidence for the claim that the current licence is broken?
I think SteveC mentioned Nike, but how's that different from someone
in breach of GPL, didn't anyone
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote:
In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of
ignorance. Shit happens.
Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses
the spirit of
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
of
John,
John Smith wrote:
I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics,
I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
with what is on the table now.
you are literally risking an out
right rejection of ODBL because
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
John,
John Smith wrote:
I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics,
I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
with what is on the table now.
you are literally
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for
massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which
On 19 July 2010 23:38, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
with what is on the table now.
Which many people cannot legally agree to, even if we do agree with
the ODBL. It seems to be a mad dash to force people down
On 19 July 2010 23:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then I don't see what's wrong with CC-BY-SA.
There is no proof there is anything wrong with it, just conjecture and
speculation it might not be good enough.
___
legal-talk mailing list
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain
(I reply merely to inform rather than to prolong the debate, as sticking my
head into a grinder is already seeming like
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
That would indicate that PD lovin, SA hatin guys will try to stuffin
committee method to push OSM in right direction? :)
The Contributor Terms have been carefully crafted to make sure that
anyone who wants to push OSM in what they perceive is the right
direction
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others.
Perhaps
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
of
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again!
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
namely
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
..
Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?
Does OSMF have clear plans to convince such data providers
2010/7/19 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again!
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would
Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything I
said and twisted it 180 degrees. Gun to your head? I'm not even on the LWG.
Quashing discussion? All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG.
There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully
On 20 July 2010 00:26, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?
You also have both the Australian and New Zealand
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio
juan_lucas...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, sorry, here is the command and error message:
http://www.prodevelop.es/files/fm/public/downloads/wxp_console.png
Slim uses 800MB of ram as a cache by default (change with -C)
Postgresql is
On 20 July 2010 00:41, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Gun to your head?
It certainly feels like it from my point of view...
All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG.
There is definitely communications problems here, not to mention
conflicting agendas at work, you can't
Am 19.07.2010 12:33, schrieb Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio:
Hello, list:
I've tried to export a 9.5 GB (150 GB uncomp.) planet to a PostGIS DB @
localhost on a Windows XP machine (1.5 GB RAM).
That's very low memory. WinXP takes at least 523 MB so only 1 GB is
avail. for the planet import. In
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
the
Hi there,
one of the big advantages of OSM is IMO the open tagging scheme. Thus
I thought why not start a trivial project called Open Brewpub Map.
This is in fact a connection of two of my hobbies (brewing and
mapping) in some way :)
As my experience in the OSM project shows people are mapping
Hello,
Are you taking into account Windows XP's virtual memory (4 GB, I think)?
I meant 1.5 GB of physical memory.
Regards
Juan Lucas
--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Brian Quinion openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote:
From: Brian Quinion openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk]
Hi Juan,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio
juan_lucas...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello,
Are you taking into account Windows XP's virtual memory (4 GB, I think)?
I meant 1.5 GB of physical memory.
I'm pretty sure they were talking about physical memory.
Using virtual
On 7/19/10, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? So far I have
only heard it from business people.
I do.
I used be in the SA camp, until I realized that SA is probably hurting
people who are doing creative stuff and would like
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything
I said and twisted it 180 degrees.
So, really, you agree with me, but I've just twisted it so that it appears
that you disagree with me? ;)
If I've
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
namely stay-at-home sons (and
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
or two years, two thirds of
2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM
contributors
want to change to a non-SA license,
Come on that wasn't a flame - now any reasonable point is a flame?
Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my
phone)
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
On Jul 19,
We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit
the OSMF has.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On
2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my
phone)
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit
the OSMF has.
Your mentioned vote didn't have /any/ statistical relevance, not even a
vote under the top contributors. But actually in The Netherlands we did :)
With again
It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.
I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see
what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:58 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:04 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com
wrote:
It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.
I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences
On 19 July 2010 22:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them decide
what licenses are acceptable for us?
It's similar to the compiler warnings, sometimes you don't want to
change your code just because the compiler can't
Frederik (and Steve, and LWG),
Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct
questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice.
Regarding the questions: taking NearMap as an example (copied from another
thread, see there for more details):
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0200, SteveC wrote:
wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
have been in vein exactly?
I think
Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony:
IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
place.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=326oldid=204
___
talk mailing list
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:55:42PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
agree with ODBL (as it
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:31:42PM +0100, Graham Jones wrote:
It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.
I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony:
IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
place.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=326oldid=204
Yeah, that's as
Am 19.07.2010 22:42, schrieb Michael Barabanov:
NearMap looks quite important for Australia.
The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on
a case by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy
with the ODbL but not with the Contributor Terms then
Am 17.07.2010 05:07, schrieb Michael Barabanov:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
The OSMF has a contractual relationship with its contributors. So if
there is no copyright
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct
questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice.
Well I have already said that I am against it, and I have given the
reasons. We have a large PD community in OSM - exactly how
Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:
The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on a
case
by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy with the ODbL
but
not with the Contributor Terms then maybe that should be done here.
So can these specific
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Sven Geggus
li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de wrote:
Tagging is easy. Just add microbrewery=yes to the node or building
area object of your local brewpub.
Whee. Now, please define microbrewery and brewpub.
Is this a microbrewery:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:32:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there
are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial
imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's
include their data without them
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Sorry, but as far as I remember CT suddenly appeared on the table.
Before that there was just ODBL.
SteveC has already told me that either my memory was faulty or I wasn't paying
attention for stating exactly that.
Couldn't be bothered to look
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on
with the license.
quash all
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
licenses?
I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying that nobody has ever made an
effort to find out what spirit most of the
On 20 July 2010 08:10, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation
who feels they can’t fit with our terms.
I'm not assuming that Simon was necessarily directing that at us, but I
think it's worth saying here that NearMap are
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:20 AM, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:43 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers...
Go ask on odc-discuss?
Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer?
You're right, much
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:26:57AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
licenses?
I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying that nobody
1 - 100 of 399 matches
Mail list logo
