For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html
Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
benefiting from data
Probably if you live in an area with a fairly large number of mappers
on the ground imports have less impact, reality is trying to map
Canada from GPS traces is a bit unrealistic. I tend not to go for
walks at minus thirty, or even minus twenty come to that.
Cheerio John
On 8 August 2010 05:38,
2010/8/8 John Smith :
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html
>
> Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
> benefiting from data imports would like to have them all ripped out
> and replaced with surveyed data.
I respect PD guys, but in
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly
> dislike their attitude.
Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance.
I'm getting increasingly exasperated with people projecting this big
bogeyman (or strawman. A big man made o
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> > I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly
> > dislike their attitude.
>
> Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance.
>
> I'm getting increasingly exasperated
80n wrote:
Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the
LWG changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process?
No, not in this case. The proposal is a subset of the powers currently
available to OSMF, not a superset. It is the existing CT _minus_ the
option o
2010/8/8 Richard Fairhurst :
>
> Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly
>> dislike their attitude.
>
> Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance.
Sorry, it wasn't meant PD supportive persons in OSM in general.
However,
On 8 August 2010 13:25, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the LWG
> changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process? There are
> already some 30,000 accounts that have signed up to CT 1.0, if the next
> batch agrees to a di
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 80n wrote:
>
>> Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the
>> LWG changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process?
>>
>
> No, not in this case. The proposal is a subset of the powers currently
> avail
On 8 August 2010 13:25, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
> What mandate does LWG have to change the contributor terms anyway? Would
> they need to put it to a vote of OSMF members or would they need to follow
> the guidelines that the CT
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> PD has nothing to do with it. Full stop.
What's the difference between PD and DBCL?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
John Smith schrieb:
For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html
Don't fight his conclusion, but his "if" in that sentence: |If
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> John Smith schrieb:
>
> For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
>> ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:
>>
>>
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/00390
On 8 August 2010 23:23, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Let's go "what if" and weigh the grand outcomes logically, not not fight
> over some people pointing out some details of some possible outcome.
So those people that have been importing cc-by-sa go "what if" and
conclude that most of their efforts for
On 8 August 2010 23:31, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who's talking about changing the direction of OSM? There's no consensus for
> any change of direction that I'm aware of. Arguing that imports should not
> be allowed because there *might* be change in direction is very
> presumptuous.
He wa
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> John Smith schrieb:
>>
>> For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
>> ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:
>>
>>
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/00390
John,
On 08/08/2010 11:38 AM, John Smith wrote:
Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
benefiting from data imports would like to have them all ripped out
and replaced with surveyed data.
It's nothing to do with PD. It's that I'm sick and tired of hearing we
cannot go
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I don't see any reason for an outcry other than this might make the
> coastline less precise for a while. Chances are it is going to be fixed very
> quickly in areas with Yahoo imagery, and might retain some of the typical
> "blockiness" of t
On 9 August 2010 00:07, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> It's nothing to do with PD. It's that I'm sick and tired of hearing we
> cannot go ahead with ODbL because someone in Australia imported some
> coastline.
And I've tried to explain numerous times that it goes well beyond
coastlines, and that's only A
On 9 August 2010 00:39, Anthony wrote:
> If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
> license change make their own coastline, on the dev server. This can
> be done quickly, right? *Then* you can delete the import, and replace
> it with the one on the dev server.
Beca
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> There are many places in the world where we have the "second-best" data in
> OSM because the best available data is not under a suitable license.
Might those places follow patterns like this:
Germany 230 people per km^2
UK 250 people per km^2
On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson wrote:
> Australia 2 people per km^2
> Sweden 21 people per km^2
Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 9 August 2010 00:59, John Smith wrote:
> On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson wrote:
>> Australia 2 people per km^2
>> Sweden 21 people per km^2
>
> Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
>
Oh and most people in Canada live within 100km of the US border, and
in Australia most people live within 10
Hi,
On 08/08/2010 04:39 PM, Anthony wrote:
If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
license change make their own coastline, on the dev server. This can
be done quickly, right? *Then* you can delete the import, and replace
it with the one on the dev server.
I hav
On 9 August 2010 01:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> In fact, this is exactly what I said I would do - not delete the existing
> coastline, but replace it with a version that has a suitable license. For
> some reason John Smith does not seem to share our view that this is a
> reasonable thing to do!
Wh
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/08/2010 04:39 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
>> license change make their own coastline, on the dev server. This can
>> be done quickly, right? *Then* you can del
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> John,
>
>
> On 08/08/2010 11:38 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
>> benefiting from data imports would like to have them all ripped out
>> and replaced with surveyed data.
>>
>
> It's
Hi,
On 08/08/2010 05:13 PM, Anthony wrote:
No, what I said is that you need to start from a blank map. If you
want to create a map which isn't CC-BY-SA, you aren't allowed to use
the CC-BY-SA map to do it.
Depends on how exactly you use it. If you use the CC-BY-SA map to flag
stuff that need
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/08/2010 05:13 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> No, what I said is that you need to start from a blank map. If you
>> want to create a map which isn't CC-BY-SA, you aren't allowed to use
>> the CC-BY-SA map to do it.
>
> Depends on how
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's likely to be 20% data loss based on the feedback I'm getting.
I can't imagine it'll be anywhere near that low. What percentage of
contributors are even still active? Maybe 20% of active contributors
will disagree with the c
Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
> On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson wrote:
>> Australia 2 people per km^2
>> Sweden 21 people per km^2
>
> Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
also where the people are.
Forests, lakes
2010/8/9 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> With enough (motivated) people we can take any data loss, and rebuild
> our database to be better within a short timeframe.
>
> It may sound arrogant, but if you look at it rationally, we could even
> compensate for mappers demotivated by any data loss by the growth of
80n schrieb:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
And if we want to change the
direction os OSM, [...]
Who's talking about changing the direction of OSM?
Hehe, another case of jumping on the conclusion, rather than the "if". ;-)
I should probably noted that I don't think a
John Smith schrieb:
On 8 August 2010 23:23, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Offending them doesn't help either. We are still ONE community in ONE
He seems to be doing a good job of offending Australians and anyone
else that has been involved with either importing or cleaning up
imports in the past...
On Sunday 08 August 2010 17:40:40 John Smith wrote:
> You've made a couple of big incorrect assumptions, firstly we have a
> big lack of contributors at present in Australia
Which probably has the same cause as the lack of contributors in the
Netherlands: Too many imports!
--
m.v.g.,
Cartinus
Anthony schrieb:
And I'm sure if you do it that way you'll be infringing on the
copyright of the CC-BY-SA data.
Gah, what are we? I thought we were an OPEN project that likes
share-alike licensing, mostly without that the explicit terms of those
licenses really matter. Only lawyers can really
John Smith schrieb:
You've made a couple of big incorrect assumptions, firstly we have a
big lack of contributors at present in Australia
Well, here in Austria, we lack contributors in areas where we had a (80%
botched) import of some existing data, and the community is thriving in
those area
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Anthony schrieb:
>>
>> And I'm sure if you do it that way you'll be infringing on the
>> copyright of the CC-BY-SA data.
>
> Gah, what are we? I thought we were an OPEN project that likes share-alike
> licensing, mostly without that the expli
On 9 August 2010 01:57, Cartinus wrote:
> Which probably has the same cause as the lack of contributors in the
> Netherlands: Too many imports!
No, too few people, and a VERY VERY big land area.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists
On 9 August 2010 02:03, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Well, here in Austria, we lack contributors in areas where we had a (80%
> botched) import of some existing data, and the community is thriving in
> those areas where we didn't have an import. Interesting, isn't it?
The problem here isn't imports, if
2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie
> Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
> > On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson wrote:
> >> Australia 2 people per km^2
> >> Sweden 21 people per km^2
> >
> > Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
>
> You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
On Sunday 08 August 2010 18:20:01 John Smith wrote:
> On 9 August 2010 01:57, Cartinus wrote:
> > Which probably has the same cause as the lack of contributors in the
> > Netherlands: Too many imports!
>
> No, too few people, and a VERY VERY big land area.
Wrong metric: As pointed out before, the
On 9 August 2010 02:38, Cartinus wrote:
> Wrong metric: As pointed out before, the metric you want is contributors per
> number of inhabitants.
>
> It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map downtown
> Melbourne.
Nice stereotyping... but not everything outside cities is a
On Sunday 08 August 2010 18:29:07 80n wrote:
> The
> following figures, from Nick Black, show a 1% drop in active contributors
> in one month. This suggests that the size of the community may already
> have peaked. Data loss will not improve this picture.
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Nick
Am 08.08.2010 18:29, schrieb 80n:
> With enough (motivated) people we can take any data loss, and rebuild
> our database to be better within a short timeframe.
>
>
> Any data loss will be a serious morale blow. Just the talk of data loss
> is already having an impact.
The point being
On 9 August 2010 02:48, Cartinus wrote:
> 2) The numbers say there is an _increase_ in the number of active mappers from
> 13,675 to 14,018. "drop of 1% of users actively contributing" <> "1% drop in
> active contributors"
What is the current projection of active contributors?
An increase of 500
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Cartinus wrote:
> On Sunday 08 August 2010 18:29:07 80n wrote:
> > The
> > following figures, from Nick Black, show a 1% drop in active contributors
> > in one month. This suggests that the size of the community may already
> > have peaked. Data loss will not imp
On 9 August 2010 03:24, John Smith wrote:
> On 9 August 2010 02:48, Cartinus wrote:
>> 2) The numbers say there is an _increase_ in the number of active mappers
>> from
>> 13,675 to 14,018. "drop of 1% of users actively contributing" <> "1% drop in
>> active contributors"
>
> What is the current
2010/8/9 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Nick Black wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> The % of users actively contributing to OSM each month has fallen
>> from 5.7% in March 2010 (13,675 / 238,985) to 4.7% in June (297,041 /
>> 14,018).
Nick, how do you calculate the above num
John Smith is saying that the idea that there aren't many Australian
contributors is incorrect. In other words, he is saying that there _are_ a lot
of Australian contributors.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
>From :mail
On 9 August 2010 03:47, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> John Smith is saying that the idea that there aren't many Australian
> contributors is incorrect. In other words, he is saying that there _are_ a
> lot of Australian contributors.
No, there is a distinct lack of contributors outside cities, and
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:39:43AM -0400, Anthony wrote:
> If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
> license change make their own coastline, on the dev server.
I want to be seeing coastlines as good as these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marrowp/4446458388/in/pool-c
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:43 PM, John Smith wrote:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/stats/data_stats.html
12,094 active users in the past month. How many in the past 6 months?
Even if we assume 12,094 times 6 (which vastly overestimates things),
and assume that 100% of such users agree to relicens
On 9 August 2010 04:38, Anthony wrote:
> 12,094 active users in the past month. How many in the past 6 months?
> Even if we assume 12,094 times 6 (which vastly overestimates things),
> and assume that 100% of such users agree to relicensing (another
> overestimate), that still leaves 213,727 use
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Therefore OSMF need not treat the two groups separately as long as it
> does not exert the future licence change option for the 30,000 'CT 1.0'
> signups.
For OSMF not to treat them separately it cannot exert a future licence change
option at all
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I don't see any reason for an outcry other than this might make the
> coastline less precise for a while. Chances are it is going to be fixed
> very quickly in areas with Yahoo imagery, and might retain some of the
> typical "blockiness" of the PGS impo
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I think that is considerably on the high side of things, since someone
> gave an estimate of total number of contributors at about 75k
Good call. There are 5,404,188 changesets. Only 11,631 changesets
are completely anonymous (no user id). Of
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:
> It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
> downtown Melbourne.
Cartinus
Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense
Imports have increased our number of contributors, not decreased them.
I have mapped, with my partner, a VERY la
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Incidentally, I'd also guess the "30,000 'CT 1.0' signups" is a
> similarly misleading figure.
What's the UID of the first user to sign up under "CT 1.0"? Can I
assume that any higher uids have likewise agreed to the contributor
terms, and any low
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> Incidentally, I'd also guess the "30,000 'CT 1.0' signups" is a
>> similarly misleading figure.
>
> What's the UID of the first user to sign up under "CT 1.0"? Can I
> assume that any higher uids h
2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
>> On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson wrote:
>>> Australia 2 people per km^2
>>> Sweden 21 people per km^2
>>
>> Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
>
> You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
> al
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
> 2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> > Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
> >> On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson wrote:
> >>> Australia 2 people per km^2
> >>> Sweden 21 people per km^2
> >>
> >> Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
> >
> >
Am 08.08.2010 23:10, schrieb Liz:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:
>> It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
>> downtown Melbourne.
> Cartinus
> Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense
Well, a Desert usually has much less features than urban terrain, so I
On 08/08/2010 22:10, Liz wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:
It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
downtown Melbourne.
Cartinus
Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense
Ha, ha, ha.
You do say the funniest things sometimes, Liz.
But only sometimes
Aun,
+1 from Chile.
The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
for us, the license change represents no problem.
Every time we have negotiated with a government agency we have talked
about a BY-SA lic
On 9 August 2010 23:40, Julio Costa Zambelli
wrote:
> The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
> etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
> for us, the license change represents no problem.
What about the new contributor terms that don't gu
But strangely enough it is a lot more complicated to map remote areas
such a desert than to map a city. Logistics for a start, I can catch
a bus and map my city locally for an hour or two, the city bus just
doesn't run to remote areas and there are a lot of remote areas in
Canada. I have written
John,
That may be a problem, but my impression is that the point four solves it.
Cheers
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:56 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 9 August 2010 23:40, Julio Costa Zambelli
> wrote:
>> The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
>> etc.) are an essential
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli <
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl> wrote:
> Aun,
>
> +1 from Chile.
>
> The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
> etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
> for us, the license change repres
John Smith schrieb:
The problem here isn't imports, if anything the few imports we have
had helped make the map less blank where fewer people map, which isn't
the same thing as fewer people living.
We have a number of reports here that people took a look, saw that
there's nothing interesting f
George,
If "The contributor terms contain clauses that permit OSMF to do
whatever they like with the content including change the license" off
course any "non PD" import will not be compatible at all.
We will have to ask the agencies to agree with the Contributor Terms
but if we are changing to a
On 10 August 2010 04:10, Julio Costa Zambelli
wrote:
> If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against
> the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways
> disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we
> were about to import right now [hospitals
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
wrote:
> We will have to ask the agencies to agree with the Contributor Terms
> but if we are changing to a PD license disguised as BY-SA (via the CT)
> they probably will not cooperate.
OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA",
John,
John Smith wrote:
And this is why Frederik wants to get rid of data imports, because it
reduces the chances of getting a PD dataset by stealth or "feature
creep"
Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for
this thread is offensive enough.
Nothing here happ
On 10 August 2010 05:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for
> this thread is offensive enough.
Sorry if the truth hurts, but some of us are offended by the notion
that something we find useful can be so easily and unceremoniously
discar
I honestly think the way forward is to continue as we are currently
and set up a separate project which is pure PD. Extract anything that
can be extracted from the current map, this can be done by selecting
data which has been contributed by those who are happy with public
domain licensing and tha
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA"
Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
going to be released under DbCL?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA"
Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
going to be released under DbCL?
Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is
pr
On 10 August 2010 07:11, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
> rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
> are largely unprotectable anway?
Largely isn't completely, which means you are suggesting that
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
>> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA"
>
> Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
> going to be released under DbCL?
they do. and it's in the contribu
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
are largely unprotectable anway?
Largely isn't completely, which means you are suggesting that if there
is any copyright
On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos wrote:
> they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
> database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
> no copyright - so copyright law can't be use
On 10 August 2010 07:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think it has been repeated countless times already, and it is funny to see
> how both you and Anthony seem to ignore that.
We're not ignoring anything, the problem is the content license
explicitly removes copyright, which makes any BY or SA data
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", OSMF would
> like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
> might be described as "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", since many
> lawyers (including those at Creativ
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos wrote:
>> they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
>> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
>> database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as f
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> John and Liz in Australia say that CC-BY(-SA) works for geodata in
> Australia, meaning that facts can be copyrighted. Several Australian
> judges seem to think otherwise but let's assume it were so.
Misquote
John has pointed out twice that one legal de
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
>>>
>>> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA"
>>
>> Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
>> going to be released und
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos wrote:
>>> they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
>>> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
>>> dat
On 10 August 2010 07:43, Matt Amos wrote:
> wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?
That isn't the point, the point was about it *explicitly* removing any
claim of copyright, which then makes it incompatible with BY and SA
data sources.
__
>>> On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos wrote:
they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
One other thing. What is meant by "the individual contents of the
database". Is a changeset an individual
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
>> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", OSMF would
>> like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
>> might be described as "a PD license di
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 10 August 2010 07:43, Matt Amos wrote:
>> wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?
>
> That isn't the point, the point was about it *explicitly* removing any
> claim of copyright, which then makes it incompatible with BY and SA
>
On 10 August 2010 08:02, Matt Amos wrote:
> that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
> the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!
How many different lawyers have been asked, and do they all share the
same opinions that we've been hearing?
__
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith
>> wrote:
>>> On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos wrote:
they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
and DbCL 1.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
>> "think otherwise"? Exact quotes of what they said?
>
> unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
>
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Fortunately most people seem to grasp the concept but I've here made an
> effort to present it, again, in simple terms to increase the number of those
> who do.
>
> Most people are actually pretty clueless about the details of ODbL, to the
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
> > On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos wrote:
> >> they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
> >> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
> telephone numbers and subscribers. The moment you add even the slightest
> originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for copyright.
>
Can
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
>>> "think otherwise"? Exact quotes of what they said?
>>
>> unfortunately
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 10 August 2010 08:02, Matt Amos wrote:
>> that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
>> the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!
>
> How many different lawyers have been asked, and do they all share the
> s
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
