Hi,
Renaud MICHEL wrote:
Users with edits who have not agreed: 86764
Users without edits who have not agreed: 129406
When you write "users who have not agreed", do you mean only those that have
explicitly said no to the CT?
Or do you include all the users who have not made a choice yet?
Th
Tom Hughes-3 wrote:
>
> To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some
> actual numbers, straight from the database:
>
> Users with edits who have agreed: 96917
> Users without edits who have agreed: 104663
> Users with edits who have not agreed: 86764
> Users without edit
On 16/06/11 17:09, Renaud MICHEL wrote:
On jeudi 16 juin 2011 at 10:20, Tom Hughes wrote :
To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some
actual numbers, straight from the database:
Users with edits who have agreed: 96917
Users without edits who have agreed: 104663
Users w
On jeudi 16 juin 2011 at 10:20, Tom Hughes wrote :
> To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some
> actual numbers, straight from the database:
>
> Users with edits who have agreed: 96917
> Users without edits who have agreed: 104663
> Users with edits who have not agreed:
Am 16.06.2011 06:13, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
What about the people who have declared their edits to be in the
public domain?
Setting PD flag without accepting OBL/DBCL/CT isn't possible in the moment
(or did I miss a loop hole,
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 11:44 +0100, Andy Street wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
> > As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> > Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
> > mean that anyone who has e
On 16/06/11 08:17, Eric Marsden wrote:
It's quite simple: I object to the OSMF using what I consider to be
very misleading statistics in communication on the ODBL process.
Michael Collinson's message can be interpreted as saying that 0.2% of
users haven't accepted the new contributor
> "rf" == Richard Fairhurst writes:
rf> Sorry, you've puzzled me a bit here.
rf> You state that it's better to cite "how much data would be deleted".
rf> However, that directly contradicts your previous paragraph, in which you
rf> quote, um, the number of users, not the amount of data
Heiko Jacobs writes:
> Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
> > Michael Collinson writes:
> > > As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> > > Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This
> > will
> > > mean that anyone who ha
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
>
> Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
>> Michael Collinson writes:
>> > As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4
>> this
>> > Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This
>> will
>> > mean that anyone who has ex
- Original Message -
From: "David Murn"
To: "Josh Doe"
Cc: ; "Richard Fairhurst"
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change
process
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 14:49 -0400, Josh Doe
Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
Michael Collinson writes:
> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
> mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms
Am 14.06.2011 22:33, schrieb Michael Collinson:
I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from
> the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA.
I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances
have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution
hav
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 14:49 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
> Perhaps it is trivial, but I have yet to hear of anyone working on a
> script or even pseudocode as to how the "cleanup" will be performed.
>
> Seems like an important item to address IMHO.
> -Josh
According to the implementation plan, sometime
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> [1] I suspect that when obvious bot edits are stripped out, the figure will
> be a lot higher, especially in America. Certainly, looking around my local
> area, the only significant "non-relicensable" objects are ways edited by
> someone
Eric Marsden wrote:
> Reading odbl.de, 60% of users have accepted the new contributor terms
> in Europe (40% in the USA, the proportion worldwide is not shown).
> There 417k users. So (extrapolating) 200k have not accepted the
> new terms and 190k have accepted.
>
> Hopefully the decision on whethe
On 15/06/2011 16:55, John Smith wrote:
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F. wrote:
It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are
trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a
conflict. I find this irritating.
No, this isn't a new thing, this has p
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Eric Marsden wrote:
> > compared to over 191,000 who now contribute under the new terms.
>
> This is disingenuous communication,
>
>
+1.
Correct me if I am wrong but I remember a statement in last SOTM saying that
90% of the new accounts are never uploading anyth
> "mc" == Michael Collinson writes:
mc> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4
mc> this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically
mc> practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined
mc> the new contributor terms will no longer be a
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F. wrote:
> It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are
> trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a
> conflict. I find this irritating.
No, this isn't a new thing, this has pretty much existed ever since
people
On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>
>> It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because
>> nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet...
>
> There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember
>
On 15/06/2011 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
What seems backward to me is deciding to use a previously
and famously "verboten" source for your edits without being perfectly
clear that those edits are now permitted.
Where was it pronounced it was forbidden?
Under CC it was acceptable at the time o
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
> On 15/06/11 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>>> It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because
>>> nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet...
>> There have been s
On 15/06/11 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>> It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because
>> nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet...
> There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember
> correctly
On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
> There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember
> correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They've been
> resistant.
There would presumably be no need to "engage with OS" if LWG was happy
that the OS OpenData License was co
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
> It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because
> nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet...
There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember
correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They
On 15/06/11 11:44, Andy Street wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
>> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
>> Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
>> mean that anyone who has explicitly declined
Mike Collinson wrote:
>
> I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the
> live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no
> urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues
> that have a near term solution have been addressed
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Street"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change
process
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
As per the implementation plan [1], we
I'm also very interested in this.
Thanks John
On 15 June 2011 06:44, Andy Street wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
> > As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> > Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
> mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms
> will no longer
Michael Collinson writes:
> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
> mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms
> will no longer be able to edit, (unless they
As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms
will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). This
currently
33 matches
Mail list logo
