Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 23 mrt. 2011 om 15:19 heeft Greg Troxel het volgende
geschreven:
>
> Russ Nelson writes:
>
>> Pieren writes:
>>> Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
>>> approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this list ?
>>
>> The streng
Z,akskjsjkjdi
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 23 mrt. 2011 om 15:19 heeft Greg Troxel het volgende
geschreven:
>
> Russ Nelson writes:
>
>> Pieren writes:
>>> Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
>>> approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this list ?
>>
On 25 March 2011 05:49, David Murn wrote:
>
> The problem is, any fork under the existing licence can continue without
> problem. Any fork under the new licence, cannot use any data unless the
> user who contributed that data can/will give them 100% rights. Those
> against the ODbL can fork any
F. Heinen wrote:
> Z,akskjsjkjdi
That certainly wins the prize for the most coherent posting in this thread.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-tp6199509p6207146.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at
Grant Slater writes:
> >
>
> Not true. ODbL licensed data *can* be forked at any time without
> asking anyone for their blessing.
>
> I don't see how you come to the conclusion otherwise. The Licensing
> Working Group consulted with a lawyer during drafting of the ODbL to
> ensure that the ODbL
Hi all,
I don't know how big the overlap is for talk and help.osm.org, and for those
that don't know / use it - please have a look, it's a great resource that
allows for very rich interaction for all things Q&A-style.
For now, I am just wondering if any of you have any insights to offer on my
par
On 25 March 2011 10:57, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Grant Slater writes:
>>
>> Not true. ODbL licensed data *can* be forked at any time without
>> asking anyone for their blessing.
>>
>> I don't see how you come to the conclusion otherwise. The Licensing
>> Working Group consulted with a lawyer during
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> F. Heinen wrote:
> > Z,akskjsjkjdi
>
> That certainly wins the prize for the most coherent posting in this thread.
>
lol.
Probably the most comprehensive summary about the licence change process
itself...
Pieren
___
* Simon Poole [2011-03-23 13:03 +0100]:
> Am 23.03.2011 12:52, schrieb Steve Doerr:
> >I'm still waiting for an official request for users to sign up to
> >the new terms. Have I missed one?
>
> No you haven't.
I thought I'd seen an announcement for the voluntary relicensing (the
phace of the ODBL
There is a big difference between an announcement to this list and on
the web site and sending an e-mail to each individual mapper. The former
only reaches a minority (very likely a small minority) of the mappers.
Besides the fact the most mappers don't actually read this list (for
example beca
On 25/03/11 14:13, Simon Poole wrote:
> I've personally been in contact with quite active mappers that months
> after August 2010 didn't realize that they could actually sign up to the
> CTs (this includes mappers that participated in the OSMF vote on the
> license change!). To this date the headl
Unfortunatly my professor decided not to support this kind of research.
I might start another try at the end of the year. Of course only if
nobody else did it before ;)
cya
Matthias
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreet
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:25:21 +
Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 25/03/11 14:13, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> > I've personally been in contact with quite active mappers that
> > months after August 2010 didn't realize that they could actually
> > sign up to the CTs (this includes mappers that participated i
At 2011-02-21 09:10, Mike N wrote:
I have seen this effect also - there are nearby areas that I will never
survey because they are too risky. Even in a vehicle, I would not want
to risk a breakdown.
For the areas that are unfriendly to pedestrian and bicycle, I have
used video from a vehi
14 matches
Mail list logo
