Simon Ward bleah.co.uk> writes:
>Are you responding to my mail, or one earlier in the thread? I stated
>that everything should be reverted to before each incompatible change.
I wanted to make the general point that while technically we can devise rules
for deciding what changes are compatible a
OK, so lets assume that some data would have to be deleted (hopefully
not lot of them, otherwise it would probably kill the project and
spawn some forks with "complete" cc-by-sa data). Where there is the
exact line between deleted and kept data is on another debate, but I
wonder the way how the dat
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:18:48AM +, Ed Avis wrote:
> You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing
> contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
Are you responding to my mail, or one earlier in the thread? I stated
that everything sh
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 08:19, Ed Avis wrote:
> Ben Laenen writes:
>
>>Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded
>>as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing
>>towards its origin.
>
> Although the way is new, don't the nodes along it keep their i
Hi!
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>[..]
> Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then [..]
> and instead write an one-page statement of
> intent that says how we'd like our data to be used and how not, and
> that's it?
I don't want to sound stupid or offensive, but - sarcastic or whatever
- I absolutely
Ben Laenen writes:
>Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded
>as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing
>towards its origin.
Although the way is new, don't the nodes along it keep their identity?
>Or another example: I can align the outlin
Richard Fairhurst systemed.net> writes:
>We don't actually have a clean dataset. Nowhere near.
>The reason we haven't been sued is exactly the same. Intent and good faith.
You are right. So what is the way of dealing with a relicensing that preserves
the intent of the contributors and is done
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> What really makes the difference, [...]
> is intent. Intent, and acting in good faith at all times.
Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then, be done with the license
(which is, in effect, an attempt at codifying things in a manner you and
Steve have just di
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice.
Absolutely.
Steve actually answers this in his (very good IMO) "Licence to kill" post.
You can theoretically work out a complicated Boolean system of "is this
derived from an ODbL refusenik's work?". You can read every bi
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> 2009/3/4 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> >>
> >> You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a
> >> non-relicensing
> >> contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to
2009/3/4 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
>>
>> You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a
>> non-relicensing
>> contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
>>
>> In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do
On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Ed Avis wrote:
> The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to
> delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit
> permission, and all data that depends on it. Period.
I agree that the only legal sound way to do it is by removing all
d
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a
> non-relicensing
> contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
>
> In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to
> convince a co
You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing
contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to
convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are suff
14 matches
Mail list logo
