On 14 December 2010 16:10, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> Hi,,
>
> > NB: we've been asked to suggest changes to the CT's if we think they
> > are unclear. I cannot remember whether you caught that.
>
> Where should these suggestions be made?
>
> My last suggested change, posted to this list, rec
Hi,,
> NB: we've been asked to suggest changes to the CT's if we think they
> are unclear. I cannot remember whether you caught that.
Where should these suggestions be made?
My last suggested change, posted to this list, received no response at all
from the licensing working group. (The proble
On 14 December 2010 14:08, Anthony wrote:
>
> Right, well, I thought someone was going to respond with "of course
> it's not 2/3 of all active contributors", so you've certainly
> confirmed to me that this is unclear, as in can be interpreted by
> non-lawyers in differing ways.
I'm afraid I'm not
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
> On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony wrote:
>> It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have
>> to vote "yes", or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active
>> contributors.
>>
>
> It is extremely unlikely that any
Anthony schrieb:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser wrote:
If "67%" is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
There's no such thing as "legales
Peter,
pec...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;
My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT
if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do th
6 matches
Mail list logo
