On 20 April 2011 07:13, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Mike Dupont writes:
> > how can you take a cc-by-sa document edit it and publish it under pd?
> > can I just make derived works in any license i want?
>
> Well, that's part of the problem here. How do we determine what is
> someone's work, and what i
Mike Dupont writes:
> how can you take a cc-by-sa document edit it and publish it under pd?
> can I just make derived works in any license i want?
Well, that's part of the problem here. How do we determine what is
someone's work, and what is a derived work? If I take a way that
someone has ent
2011/4/19 Dirk-Lüder Kreie
> So I accepted the new CT, and the new license by declaring my edits to
> be in the Public Domain, and I can only encourage you and everyone else
> to do the same, because that is the only sane way forward for the
> project, even if we have to remap parts of the world
Grant Slater writes:
> On 18 April 2011 05:05, Russ Nelson wrote:
> > Copyright.
> DRM.
DRM is a safe. The purpose of a safe is to slow you down. You purchase
a safe in terms of the amount of time it will take to be cracked. Once
it's cracked?
> > Copyright.
--
--my blog is athttp://bl
Anthony writes:
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> > Mike N writes:
> > > Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for
> > > the cases I'm aware of.
> >
> > The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people
> > who viol
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 12:51 -0700, SteveC wrote:
> You know I don't have a private jet, right?
>
> But if I did, Fred could pilot it.
even if he said no?
--
regards
KG
http://lawgon.livejournal.com
Coimbatore LUG rox
http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
___
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:38 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
> Where its said that a person checked the box ?
> And not a bot, and if it were human, who did it ?
> Someone who shared/hacked your WiFi ?
> There is no legal relation between an ip-number and
> a person unless
On 14/04/2011, at 8:06 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
> On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston wrote:
>> * If so, how do we know what data must be removed in a switch to ODbL?
>
> That clause doesn't appear to put any obligation on you to remove
> data. All it requires of you is that _when you contri
On 14/04/2011, at 6:57 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> This method seems a much more satisfactory way of doing things to me
> -- assuming it could work legally (IANAL). We would still have the
> flexibility to re-license if we needed to without individual mappers
> being able to hold their data
Hi,
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
As you are going to be waiting a long time to collect, could you
actually explain why you have gone from being a Public Domain activist
to an ODbL activist.
I'm quite sure the PD club were asked to make a new mailing list to take
Public Domain discussions off legal-t
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:33:36 +0200
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> SteveC said he'd let me pilot his private jet if I say yes.
As you are going to be waiting a long time to collect, could you
actually explain why you have gone from being a Public Domain activist
to an ODbL activist.
I'm quite sure the PD
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:44:48 -0400
Gerald A wrote:
> I don't believe he meant to imply that they would be automatiically
> marked as accepting; but rather that their acceptance or rejection
> wouldn't have a data impact.
And thus the meaning of the question
Are we counting humans or data?
On 18/04/2011 18:50, Thomas Davie wrote:
Because it will show the genuine trend – at the moment, a quick glance
at the graph would suggest that the "no" vote is expanding at the same
rate, and at the same level as the "yes" vote. I agree that we can't
clearly show that they're not at the same
You know I don't have a private jet, right?
But if I did, Fred could pilot it.
On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:45 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> I don't think Steve, it's a good idea to admit that in public.
>
> I remember that some osm user publicly confessed to have used G
I don't think Steve, it's a good idea to admit that in public.
I remember that some osm user publicly confessed to have used Google
while
mapping OSM data and he was very badly treated... ;<) or ;<((
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: SteveC [mailto:st...@asklater.com]
Verzonden: dinsd
Where its said that a person checked the box ?
And not a bot, and if it were human, who did it ?
Someone who shared/hacked your WiFi ?
There is no legal relation between an ip-number and
a person unless there is other circumstantial evidence,
such as a double opt-in confirmed log-in in with usernam
Argh, apparently I gave in too early when you promised that Hurricane
would give me a smile at the next SoTM!! Maybe I should've asked for a
private dinner...
Op 19-04-11 21:18, SteveC schreef:
It's true.
On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:33 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 04/19/11 14:14, Elizabeth Dod
It's true.
On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:33 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/19/11 14:14, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>> Of course, those who can remember a bit further back, recall that
>> Frederick Ramm is in favour of Public Domain, and not ODbL.
>> Perhaps if you explain just how your support was b
Am 19.04.11 schrieb Elizabeth Dodd:
Are we counting humans or data?
I count data at http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/ below the map,
Toby and Fred count humans, while SunCobalt and wicking count both at
http://odbl.de/
Fabian.
___
talk
Am 19.04.2011 03:51, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
>
> jgrocha wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently, when I try to upload my edits, the server (or JOSM?) is
>> reporting:
>> Waiting 10 seconds ... OK - trying again.
>> then it waits 10 seconds and continues afterwards.
>>
>> Is this some kind of "overload"
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2011, at 11:09, David Groom wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Thomas Davie"
>
> Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the new CT's without
> incident. OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing
So here it begins, Google Map Maker now available in the US:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/add-your-local-knowledge-to-map-with.html
http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/help/mapmaker/
-Josh
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Mike N wrote:
>
> On 4/11/2011 11:41 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>>
>> When
On 19 April 2011 13:46, Anthony wrote:
>
>
> My jurisdiction is Florida.
OK. Mine is England and Wales. Licenses operate on different principles here
as they do with you, so we can leave it there.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:14 +1000, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>> Perhaps if you explain just how your support was bought
>
> this is not acceptable on an open mailing list - or on *any* mailing
> list.
Relax, everybody. Consider the source;
Am 19.04.2011 14:14, schrieb Elizabeth Dodd:
...
To make your majority you add in X thousand who joined late and didn't
get a vote, and subtract Y thousand who haven't yet made an edit.
Elizabeth, please show us just one tally that shows anything but a tiny
fraction of mappers that have
On 19 April 2011 13:14, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:51:06 +0200
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> One small plea: Could you refrain from saying "the camp that wants to
>> move to the ODbL". It sounds like it's a small bunch of people when
>> indeed it is the overwhelming majority.
>
Hi,
On 04/19/11 14:14, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
Of course, those who can remember a bit further back, recall that
Frederick Ramm is in favour of Public Domain, and not ODbL.
Perhaps if you explain just how your support was bought it would make
more entertaining reading that your recent posts.
Ste
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:14 +1000, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> Perhaps if you explain just how your support was bought
this is not acceptable on an open mailing list - or on *any* mailing
list.
--
regards
KG
http://lawgon.livejournal.com
Coimbatore LUG rox
http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/
_
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:51:06 +0200
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> One small plea: Could you refrain from saying "the camp that wants to
> move to the ODbL". It sounds like it's a small bunch of people when
> indeed it is the overwhelming majority.
well that's just meadowdust.
The ODbL camp did not eve
Tom, (Bob?),
On 04/19/11 09:09, Thomas Davie wrote:
That 70% *have*
agreed to distribute their work under the new license. It is entirely
valid for the camp that wants to move to the ODbL sooner rather than
later to count the 70% in their stats, because accepting the new license
is all that matt
On 4/11/2011 11:41 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
When Google turns Google MapMaker on in the US and Europe*, it will
become much harder to recruit new mappers to our community (that is
already quite small). Being passive about this issue means that OSM and
its more-open data will eventually be drowned out
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:43:06 +0100
Thomas Davie wrote:
> We will not lose any data from these people whether they agree or
> not, so they're safe and should be counted in the stats.
Are we counting humans or data?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreet
On 19 Apr 2011, at 11:09, David Groom wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Thomas Davie"
>>
>> On 19 Apr 2011, at 09:41, David Groom wrote:
>>> It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the "YES" statistics.
>>> Its valid to say all the people who have never edited would
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Davie"
To: "David Groom"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
On 19 Apr 2011, at 09:41, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Thomas Davie"
The thing you're not u
On 19 Apr 2011, at 09:41, David Groom wrote:
>> - Original Message - From: "Thomas Davie"
>>
>> The thing you're not understanding is that this isn't a vote. It's an
>> agreement to distribute your work under a new license.
>
> No, the CT's are an agreement to contribute work, not t
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Davie"
To: "David Murn"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On 19 Apr 2011, at 01:15, David Murn wrote:
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:53 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
...which is ignoring the 70% or so of all o
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Davie"
To: "David Murn"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On 19 Apr 2011, at 01:15, David Murn wrote:
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:53 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
...which is ignoring the 70% or so of all o
On 19 Apr 2011, at 01:15, David Murn wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:53 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
>> ...which is ignoring the 70% or so of all of those people who never
>> edited and can be switched over without incident.
>
> That sounds like the thinking of the parties in a real vote, 'if
>
38 matches
Mail list logo
