I would like to make this more complex,
for my edits outside of Kosovo, I dont see any problem letting you
re-license the data, so feel free.
mike
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Jo wrote:
> It would indeed be great if we could use an arbitrary version of an object
> to continue to build upon. N
Andrew Harvey wrote on 06/09/2011 07:37:05 PM:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Jo wrote:
> > It would indeed be great if we could use an arbitrary version of an
object
> > to continue to build upon. Now, I have to start all over on each
object that
> > was touched by somebody who didn't agre
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Jo wrote:
> It would indeed be great if we could use an arbitrary version of an object
> to continue to build upon. Now, I have to start all over on each object that
> was touched by somebody who didn't agree (yet) to the CTs, which is
> annoying, as it disrupts the
It would indeed be great if we could use an arbitrary version of an object
to continue to build upon. Now, I have to start all over on each object that
was touched by somebody who didn't agree (yet) to the CTs, which is
annoying, as it disrupts the entire history.
Jo
2011/9/5 Ian Sergeant
>
> I
On 01.09.2011 08:19, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
On 31.08.2011 10:44, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
I would go so far as to say, don't delete *anything* until legally
you absolutely have to.
I would like to somehow modyfy this statement: we should replace the
data not delete it! So please remap the info
Simon Poole writes:
> It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply
> accept the CTs.
It is clearly the easier, pragmatic,[1] and sensible thing to simply
accept public domain contributions to OSM. We've accepted them in the
past (and relicensed under CC-By-SA). What is
I wrote:
> To address your question specifically, what happens to data placed in
the
> public domain by the author on the wiki, who then specifically declines
> the CT? Well in the first case, if the edits are just a trivial
> modification to a fully CT-compliant version - I'd say just hide
>
Robert Whittaker (OSM) writes:
> This ambiguity is presumably at least one of the reasons why LWG don't
> feel they're able to accept arbitrary PD declarations.
If they can't accept a PD declaration, then they can't accept the
CT. If they can't accept "This data is in the public domain", then
th
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:34 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 3 September 2011 19:12, Simon Poole wrote:
>> It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply
>> accept the CTs.
>
> Hardly, the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do is just use
> CC-by-SA then you don't need to t
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst writes:
> > [follow-ups should be to legal-talk yadda yadda]
> >
> > Russ Nelson wrote:
> > > What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is
> > > in the public domain?
> >
> > See
> > http://lists
Simon Poole wrote:
> there are further "minor" points that would have to be considered, for
> example voting rights on future license changes.
I don't see any problem here. There is a definition of "active
contributors" in the CT which does not mention the CT or any of the
licenses, just the act
On 3 September 2011 19:12, Simon Poole wrote:
> This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed out
> before
> there are further "minor" points that would have to be considered, for
> example
> voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply assume
> tha
This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed
out before
there are further "minor" points that would have to be considered, for
example
voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply assume
that all PD contributors don't care, I'm just not quite sur
On 9/3/2011 4:38 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
One would also need to add
something along the lines of "And I'm reasonably sure that no-one else
has any copyright claims over my contributions that would prevent OSMF
re-distributing them under the relevant licenses."
I hope you realize that
On 3 September 2011 05:03, Russ Nelson wrote:
> The first is a contract of adhesion: "Here's my
> work; I renounce any copyright claims over it." The OSMF has the
> choice of accepting that contract or rejecting it, just as it does the
> contract formed by agreeing to the Contributor Terms. I don'
On 3 September 2011 14:03, Russ Nelson wrote:
> be difficult to prove. Since 1) the defense is strong, 2) the harm is
> minimal, 3) cooperation is full, you should expect absolutely nobody
> to sue the OSMF for infringement of works which are supposedly PD or
> CT but not really.
The position tak
Richard Fairhurst writes:
> [follow-ups should be to legal-talk yadda yadda]
>
> Russ Nelson wrote:
> > What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is
> > in the public domain?
>
> See
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-August/006608.html
> e
Ian Sergeant writes:
> To address your question specifically, what happens to data placed in the
> public domain by the author on the wiki, who then specifically declines
> the CT? Well in the first case, if the edits are just a trivial
> modification to a fully CT-compliant version - I'd s
Павел Фомин wrote on 01/09/2011 09:24:30 PM:
> What about this case:
> v1 is CT-compliant.
> v2 adds a new tag and is not CT-compliant.
> Then, v3 changes this tag and adds a bunch of other tags.
> Will these other tags be considered compliant?
This highlights one of the issues. The v3 may or n
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:14 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> Furthermore, the goal is not to have a CT-clean database. You already
>> have a CT-clean database. The goal, apparently, is to have an
>> ODbL-clean database.
>>
> I think you me
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Furthermore, the goal is not to have a CT-clean database. You already
> have a CT-clean database. The goal, apparently, is to have an
> ODbL-clean database.
>
> I think you mean a CT-clean contributor-base. Much of the database content
is un-in
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> When I have a v1 object that is non-CT compliant, then we have to assume the
> further revisions may be derivatives.
Why do we have to assume this?
> If CT-agreed mappers have added tags
> from a survey in later revisions, then we can possibl
What about this case:
v1 is CT-compliant.
v2 adds a new tag and is not CT-compliant.
Then, v3 changes this tag and adds a bunch of other tags.
Will these other tags be considered compliant?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.opens
Michael Kugelmann wrote on 01/09/2011 04:19:41 PM:
> we should replace the data not delete it! So please remap the
information that needs to be removed.
Of course we should, but we need to gives ourselves the tools which allow
us to do this effectively and well.
Lets think about the current p
On 31.08.2011 10:44, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
I would go so far as to say, don't delete *anything* until legally you
absolutely have to.
I would like to somehow modyfy this statement: we should replace the
data not delete it! So please remap the information that needs to be
removed.
Best regard
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Given that LWG doesn't appear to be changing its IMO daft stance that "a
> user placing their data in the public domain is not good enough for us", I
> am seriously tempted to delete and reimport TimSC's data[1] under my own
> account, an
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is in
> the public domain?
Isn't all data in the public domain?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetm
Simon Poole wrote on 31/08/2011 05:29:46 PM:
> I wouldn't over exaggerate the issue, in many many countries it's
> actually quite difficult to find non-compliant objects and in the
> countries where there are widespread issues the mappers are in general
> aware of the situation and, for examp
things have changed since then, might be worth revisiting
On 8/31/2011 5:48 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Ed Avis wrote:
Why not do what Wikipedia did and work together with the licence authors
(in
this case Creative Commons and Open Data Commons) to provide an automatic
upgrade clause? Then no
Richard Fairhurst systemed.net> writes:
>>Why not do what Wikipedia did and work together with the licence authors
>I expressly asked this a couple of years ago:
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001971.html
>
>and was told "no":
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/p
On 8/31/2011 8:48 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Ed Avis wrote:
Why not do what Wikipedia did and work together with the licence authors
(in
this case Creative Commons and Open Data Commons) to provide an automatic
upgrade clause? Then nothing need be deleted.
I expressly asked this a couple of
Ed Avis wrote:
> Why not do what Wikipedia did and work together with the licence authors
> (in
> this case Creative Commons and Open Data Commons) to provide an automatic
> upgrade clause? Then nothing need be deleted.
I expressly asked this a couple of years ago:
http://lists.openstreetmap.or
Why not do what Wikipedia did and work together with the licence authors (in
this
case Creative Commons and Open Data Commons) to provide an automatic upgrade
clause? Then nothing need be deleted.
--
Ed Avis
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap
On 31/08/2011 10:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[1] the stuff that people have built useful stuff on, that is. I doubt
anyone would miss the random landuse
... or the NPE-derived waterways in Southern England (given that we now
have far better sources for those).
The problem with that of cours
[follow-ups should be to legal-talk yadda yadda]
Russ Nelson wrote:
> What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is
> in the public domain?
See
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-August/006608.html
et seq.
Given that LWG doesn't appear to be changing
so, the quality of the OSM
map - already a useful resource for the general public - will be affected.
Nick
-Nathan Edgars II wrote: -
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
From: Nathan Edgars II
Date: 31/08/2011 08:17AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 8/
Am 31.08.2011 09:16, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
Hoe about this: if you decide to delete data that the OSMF has decided
not to accept, look at the history and only delete what's necessary.
There's no need to make it harder on ordinary mappers who don't care
about the license change.
I would
On 8/31/2011 3:06 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
- use the license status tools in Potlatch and JOSM when you are editing
anyway to only leave compliant data after an edit (for example by not
moving non-compliant nodes in a way, but by replacing them). This is
naturally assuming that you have tracks and
On 31 August 2011 17:06, Simon Poole wrote:
> - ignore trolling by JohnSmith
Funny way to ignore someone, in any case here's at least one particular example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14416
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetma
Am 31.08.2011 02:19, schrieb Ian Sergeant:
I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big
bang is flawed.
I don't know of anybody who has proposed such a strategy (well at least
nobody serious about the matter). It is clear, at the very end, there
will be some automat
Russ Nelson wrote on 31/08/2011 03:43:28 PM:
> What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is in
> the public domain?
Hi Russ,
The suggestion here is to streamline a process, more than determine
policy.. That is to..
1. Automatically hide trivial changes to objects origi
On 31 August 2011 15:43, Russ Nelson wrote:
> John Smith writes:
> > On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang
> is
> >
> > What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had data compatible
> > with
John Smith writes:
> On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> >
> > I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang is
>
> What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had data compatible
> with the current license, cc-by-sa ?
What about the people who d
On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>
> I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang is
What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had data compatible
with the current license, cc-by-sa ?
___
talk mailing lis
I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang
is flawed. The best result for OSM is going to be obtained if the core
data is nearly clean by the day of the relicencing, so that the removal
of the remainder has the least possible impact. However, to accomplish
that,
45 matches
Mail list logo
