this made my day :-)
As OSM has gone on I've found more and more that I'm attacked when people
simply don't listen (I got flames in David Earls talk at SOTM when I said 'tag
equivalences were going to be part of the original tagging system', people
flamed me saying they thought that me hating t
On 15 July 2010 20:28, James Livingston wrote:
> How all that will work in practice, I don't know.
That's the point, no one can know at this point, and if people are
afraid to vote for odbl because of this things are likely to be a lot
worst off.
___
t
On 14/07/2010, at 9:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait wrote:
>> What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable?
>
> I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears
> in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone
>
Richard Weait wrote:
>
>> Allow contributors to vote before the change over occurs, not just if
>> they agree to license their data under ODBL or not...
>
> Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?:
>
> ... steps leading to today
> - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not
> - summ
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I am simply saying that if you wanted to get involved in the decision
> whether or not to ask users how they would licence their contributions,
> there was a really simple way to do so: by joining OSMF.
>
If you want to be allowed to cri
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Andy Allan wrote:
> Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that
> are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to
> the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from
> making the legal advice public.
In a project where there are endless copies of the data floating around the
net I can't see how deleting non-trivial amounts of data is going to work
anyway. What is going to stop people who don't care about the license
change, or are just pissed off to lose "their" work, just re-uploading the
dele
On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait wrote:
> What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable?
I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears
in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone
that spent even a few hours working to make OSM data bet
Richard Weait wrote:
>
> Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?:
>
> ... steps leading to today
> - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not
> - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept.
> - somebody processes all the results to show data effect
> - publish those results
> -
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I am simply saying that if you wanted to get involved in the decision
> whether or not to ask users how they would licence their contributions,
> there was a really simple way to do so: by joining OSMF.
That I did, and was disappointed at the failure
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread
> (I know that it's not an "official" OSMF/LWG position)
Of course it isn't. I'm not on the OSMF board let alone LWG; indeed, I
actively told OSMF earlier this year that I did not intend to assist it in
any
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:18 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 14 July 2010 19:08, Andy Allan wrote:
>> See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if
>> you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far.
>
> How about defining some specific points about what an ac
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ęvar Arnfjörš Bjarmason wrote:
>>
>> That doesn't just go for the LWG, it seems that a lot of the people
>> involved in the OSMF prefer to do things via conference calls. The
>> calls aren't recorded and published (that I've seen)
>
Am 14.07.2010 11:08, schrieb Andy Allan:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder
Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009:
http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Andreas Labres wrote:
> On 14.07.10 09:59, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>> I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these
>> discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same
>> elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" a
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
That doesn't just go for the LWG, it seems that a lot of the people
involved in the OSMF prefer to do things via conference calls. The
calls aren't recorded and published (that I've seen)
Recording and making public such conversations would mean that everyone
Andy Allan wrote:
> But there's no
> intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other
> people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive?
1. Define reasonable limits for your future decisions, so people know
what to expect.
2. Let active contributors have a say
Am 14.07.2010 12:03, schrieb Andreas Labres:
On 14.07.10 09:59, Ulf Lamping wrote:
I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these
discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same
elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad
On 14.07.10 09:59, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me
> around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my
> understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and follow
> our judgement.
Well, I am an OS
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:08, Andy Allan wrote:
> But there's no intention to create an inner circle or, by
> corrollary, exclude other people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to
> make this more inclusive?
> [...]
> See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if
> you are int
On 14 July 2010 19:08, Andy Allan wrote:
> See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if
> you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far.
How about defining some specific points about what an acceptable loss
of data will be, possibly on a per region bas
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me
> around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my
> understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and
> follow our judgement.
I
Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
> See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder
> Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009:
>
> http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html
>
You are aware that you pointed to a post by _fake_ stevec? I.e.
> Am 14.07.2010 09:59, schrieb Ulf Lamping:
> See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder
> Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December
> 2009:
>
> http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html
Um, I think it is worth pointing out the wor
On 14 July 2010 17:59, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me
> around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my
> understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and
> follow our judgement.
As pointed ou
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these
> discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same
> elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-(
Question to both
Am 14.07.2010 01:26, schrieb John Smith:
There has been a slightly disturbing thread on the legal-talk list
about defining critical mass, so far things aren't any closer to being
defined and statistics are being abused to suit positions:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-J
There has been a slightly disturbing thread on the legal-talk list
about defining critical mass, so far things aren't any closer to being
defined and statistics are being abused to suit positions:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003453.html
At this stage I'll not be
28 matches
Mail list logo
