See http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Rebuild_Plan
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 21/03/12 08:26, Simon Poole wrote:
See http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Rebuild_Plan
I think that date is very unlikely to be met.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 21/03/12 08:26, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> See http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Rebuild_Plan
>
> I think that date is very unlikely to be met.
Putting it a little differently, how confident is the Rebuild Team
that all of those tasks c
Hi,
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:17:06 -0400
Josh Doe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 21/03/12 08:26, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> >> See http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Rebuild_Plan
> >
> > I think that date is very unlikely to be met.
>
> Putting it a little
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> I think that date is very unlikely to be met.
I sincerely hope they don't even try. This is an entirely self-imposed
deadline with no external drivers at all - let's take our time and get
the best result possible.
Steve
__
Frederik Ramm wrote:
The "April 1st" proclamation did a lot of good in the past months because people
understood that we were serious, but clinging to it*now* is likely to
lead an unnecessarily downtime and sloppy work,
As I have said in the past ... any existing user who has not accepted the
Frederik Ramm writes:
> I don't believe that this schedule will work; it is a schedule that was
> basically created backwards: "We want to finish by April 1st, then
> what deadlines do we have to make for that to work".
I agree with Frederik. The rebuild code contains neither the word
"public"
We've been through this multiple times, but here we go again:
a) there is no one to one relationship between wiki accounts and osm
accounts
b) the meaning of the PD-checkbox can't be reinterpreted after the fact
(yes it was not a very good idea to make it non-binding, but that is the
way it is)
Il giorno 22/mar/2012 11:00, "Simon Poole" ha scritto:
>
> c) we are providing mechanisms (changeset level overrides, "adoption")
> that allow PD data to be carried forward, preferably after consultation
> with the mapper in question
>
> Simon
If PD option is a problem, users can have a way to
Not quite sure what your question is, but yes naturally any user that
hasn't agreed to the CTs can still agree and have his data included (at
least up to mid next week).
This should not be a problem for anybody that considers their
contributions PD anyway, but this is OSM, you can make a problem
Il giorno 22/mar/2012 11:14, "Simon Poole" ha scritto:
>
>
> Not quite sure what your question is, but yes naturally any user that
hasn't agreed to the CTs can still agree and have his data included (at
least up to mid next week).
Nope, I've accepted long time ago but I checked the PD option.
If
The PD check box doesn't influence anything, so as a consequence it
doesn't cause any problems either.
Simon
Am 22.03.2012 11:20, schrieb sabas88:
>
>
> Il giorno 22/mar/2012 11:14, "Simon Poole" mailto:si...@poole.ch>> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> > Not quite sure what your question is, but yes natural
A series of people have expressed doubts on this thread that the proposed
rebuild plan is realistic and I haven't seen a response to this here.
If the current schedule is not realistic - is there an update to it in the
works?
Do we need to expect an extended time period of OpenStreetMap being
Simon Poole writes:
> We've been through this multiple times, but here we go again:
Obviously not enough times, because I hadn't heard of this before. I
was under the impression that when I said that my edits were in the
public domain, everybody believed me. I think other people probably
think th
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Simon Poole writes:
> > We've been through this multiple times, but here we go again:
>
> Obviously not enough times, because I hadn't heard of this before. I
> was under the impression that when I said that my edits were in the
> public doma
Am 24.03.2012 16:42, schrieb Russ Nelson:
Sorry to keep pushing so hard on this, but why delete map data
unnecessarily? Why delete MY data unnecessarily?
The first question you ask here I can take as serious: good one, and
IMHO you're right, I cannot say, why the OSMF don't want to count data
f
Am 24.03.2012 16:42, schrieb Russ Nelson:
> Simon Poole writes:
>
>
> > b) the meaning of the PD-checkbox can't be reinterpreted after the fact
>
> Yes, it can, and it should be. If I make a public declaration that I
> do not intend to pursue copyright claims against anybody, or that I
> th
Simon Poole writes:
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F
What if someone refuses to choose? What is the policy there? "If you
choose not to decide you still have made a choice", and the
implications of that choice are not described.
>
On Mar 24, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
> I had someone respond to my license change email saying that they had
> agreed to the new license and had checked the PD checkbox so that
> their edits wouldn't be a concern in any future license change. Of
> course with the new CT that wouldn't be
19 matches
Mail list logo
