On 6 Mar 2009, at 11:07, 80n wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, graham gra...@theseamans.net wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I believe the Foundation intends to give a vote *only* to those
who were
members in good standing as of January 23rd so your few days had
better
be 40-ish if
Hi,
graham wrote:
How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? Is it possible to
check the register of members?
I recently asked bo...@osmf for a list of members and received the
answer that providing such a list might clash with members' privacy; but
they said they thought that
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I recently asked bo...@osmf for a list of members and received the
answer that providing such a list might clash with members' privacy; but
they said they thought that creating a members-only mailing list would
be a good idea (I expect this to be done any day now). So
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
I support Frederik's view that the community is the most valuable aspect
of OSM.
Um, I'm not arguing against that. All I'm disputing is this silly little
notion that maps automatically lose all value
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I recently asked bo...@osmf for a list of members and received the
answer that providing such a list might clash with members' privacy; but
they said they thought that creating a members-only mailing
Hi,
Russ Nelson wrote:
Well, Ulf has explicitly said that he doesn't trust the process to keep
the data free, and wants to be able to sue people whom he believes are
infringing the copyright.
But as far as contributing without a clear agreement, just look at
Wikimapia.
Contributing
On 5 Mar 2009, at 16:27, Grant Slater wrote:
SteveC wrote:
A 'pure' OSM perspective should of course come from the OSMF
lawyer and I hope you/the 'licensing group' will be able to
explain some of the outstanding Use Cases to him so he can give an
opinion. Is that going to be possible
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
If we get 99% there with version 1.0 and version 2.0 takes the next
two years then the cost benefit, to me, would suggest 1.0 as the
better deal.
Lets first get the consultation input into Jordan, then lets read the
updated draft, then comment again if that is
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months
longer is rather negligible,
The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We
kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could
fall
OJ W wrote:
Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful,
anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if
we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time
for april fools
Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the
The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions because
you mapped them as PD. So we can do whatever we want with the canal
data without having to consult anyone.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
OJ W wrote:
Given that maps need to be
OJ W wrote:
The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions
because you mapped them as PD.
I did? I've done comparatively little canal line mapping in OSM, let alone
bridges and locks.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OJ W wrote:
Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful,
anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if
we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time
for april fools
Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of
80n wrote:
I support Frederik's view that the community is the most valuable aspect
of OSM.
Um, I'm not arguing against that. All I'm disputing is this silly little
notion that maps automatically lose all value after a year or two.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:29, SteveC wrote:
For your interest my company's lawyer (acting for ITO World Ltd) is
hoping to have her response together in relation to the license by
the end of tomorrow. My company will review her comments and hope
to be able to make that document publicly
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:24, 80n wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:48 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 4 Mar 2009, at 08:12, Gervase Markham wrote:
So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets
build a
consensus.
Absolutely! As long as you allow us the time to
On 5 Mar 2009, at 01:11, Peter Miller wrote:
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:29, SteveC wrote:
For your interest my company's lawyer (acting for ITO World Ltd)
is hoping to have her response together in relation to the license
by the end of tomorrow. My company will review her comments and
SteveC wrote:
A 'pure' OSM perspective should of course come from the OSMF lawyer
and I hope you/the 'licensing group' will be able to explain some of
the outstanding Use Cases to him so he can give an opinion. Is that
going to be possible within the consultation phase?
I don't see why
On 5 Mar 2009, at 16:09, SteveC wrote:
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:24, 80n wrote:
We shouldn't let other people's timescales force our own decisions.
If more time is needed, and there is a lot of opinion that suggests
it is, if the current issues cannot be resolved by April 1 then of
course we
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
COMMUNITY HELP... Could I ask some guys to please go through the list
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases
And flag which one still require a response from the OSMF lawyer
including those
On 5 Mar 2009, at 17:36, Matt Amos wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
COMMUNITY HELP... Could I ask some guys to please go through the list
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases
And flag which one still require a
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months
longer is rather negligible,
The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We kept
On Mar 5, 2009, at 3:34 PM, OJ W wrote:
Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone
relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the
license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools, as
their update stream stops when the license changes.
Hi,
Russ Nelson wrote:
The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We
kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could fall
down at any time. It didn't fall, and it didn't fall. One might be
tempted to think that one could go into the barn and
Hi Steve,
Just to say - thanks for writing out this funny long email.
I've been involved with debates over Creative Commons licenses and, boy,
people love to stick their oar in where it doesn't belong! I also know
Jordan, I had beers with him in Dubrovnik a couple of years ago, he's a
great guy
On 4 Mar 2009, at 04:28, SteveC wrote:
snip
We blame Steve because he's evil. We blame the process because it took
too long. We blame the working group for not being quicker. We figure
the foundation must be culpable. We write long rants about how it's a
dire emergency...
snip
My main
Tom,
Tom Chance wrote:
Just keep pointing at all the excellent info on the wiki at every stage.
Have you actually looked at what is on the Wiki and made an intelligent
judgment that this is excellent info at every stage? Or are you just
assuming there must be because someone said so?
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:03:44 +0100, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Have you actually looked at what is on the Wiki and made an intelligent
judgment that this is excellent info at every stage? Or are you just
assuming there must be because someone said so?
Personally, I would
On 04/03/09 04:28, SteveC wrote:
We blame Steve because he's evil. We blame the process because it took
too long. We blame the working group for not being quicker. We figure
the foundation must be culpable. We write long rants about how it's a
dire emergency...
I don't see any of that, at
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:12, Gervase Markham wrote:
Incidentally, we're not all code weenies with no clue about licensing.
I've been point of contact at the Mozilla project (which is of not
insignificant size and complexity) for licensing issues for about five
years now, although recently we
On 4 Mar 2009, at 11:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Steve reluctant to publish publicly as it would invite another
round of changes.
Blimey, if you talk to people, they might have ideas and suggestions
or even want to CHANGE something. Better keep things to yourself and
complain later.
On 4 Mar 2009, at 04:01, Peter Miller wrote:
My main criticism in relation to license Steve is not that you are
'evil' but that you have been absent. Your last post in relation to
the license on legal-talk was over three months go (25th Nov).
Given that you are the only person who has
On 4 Mar 2009, at 03:31, Tom Chance wrote:
Hi Steve,
Just to say - thanks for writing out this funny long email.
np
I've been involved with debates over Creative Commons licenses and,
boy,
people love to stick their oar in where it doesn't belong! I also know
Jordan, I had beers with
On 4 Mar 2009, at 08:12, Gervase Markham wrote:
So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets
build a
consensus.
Absolutely! As long as you allow us the time to (i.e. slow down and
stop
trying to get it done by the end of March!), then I'm all for that :-)
Maybe I'm
i'm in ur maling list, fixin ur logics.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:24 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Here's where your logic is falling over.
1) read about Steve being reluctant
2) Steve is evil
3) mail the list
4) ???
5) PROFIT!!1!
cheers,
matt
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:48 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 4 Mar 2009, at 08:12, Gervase Markham wrote:
So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets
build a
consensus.
Absolutely! As long as you allow us the time to (i.e. slow down and
stop
trying to
36 matches
Mail list logo
