rf == Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net 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
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
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
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
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:
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
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 edits who
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?
The
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 be
I'm also very interested in this.
Thanks John
On 15 June 2011 06:44, Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk 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
- Original Message -
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
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
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 and
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 the
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones roller...@sucs.org 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
On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com 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
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Chris Jones roller...@sucs.org wrote:
On 15/06/11 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones roller...@sucs.org wrote:
It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because
nobody got around to talking to the OS folks
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 of
On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones roller...@sucs.org 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
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 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
mc == Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz 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
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr 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
On 15/06/2011 16:55, John Smith wrote:
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com 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
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 whether to
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net 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
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 after
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
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
- Original Message -
From: David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au
To: Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change
process
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 explicitly
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 has explicitly
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 the
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
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
