On 26/03/11 07:55, David Murn wrote:
On an interesting side note, I note the main slippy map no longer has
any attribution text, which Im sure it used to in the past. Is this a
sign of things to come?
To the best of my knowledge it has never had one except when it is
printed because being on
On 3/26/2011 3:55 AM, David Murn wrote:
On an interesting side note, I note the main slippy map no longer has
any attribution text, which Im sure it used to in the past. Is this a
sign of things to come?
LOL - do we list ourselves in the "Hall of Shame"?
_
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 09:50 +, Grant Slater wrote:
> On 25 March 2011 05:49, David Murn wrote:
> >
> > The problem is, any fork under the existing licence can continue without
> > problem. Any fork under the new licence, cannot use any data unless the
> > user who contributed that data can/wi
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:25:21 +
Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 25/03/11 14:13, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> > I've personally been in contact with quite active mappers that
> > months after August 2010 didn't realize that they could actually
> > sign up to the CTs (this includes mappers that participated i
On 25/03/11 14:13, Simon Poole wrote:
> I've personally been in contact with quite active mappers that months
> after August 2010 didn't realize that they could actually sign up to the
> CTs (this includes mappers that participated in the OSMF vote on the
> license change!). To this date the headl
There is a big difference between an announcement to this list and on
the web site and sending an e-mail to each individual mapper. The former
only reaches a minority (very likely a small minority) of the mappers.
Besides the fact the most mappers don't actually read this list (for
example beca
* Simon Poole [2011-03-23 13:03 +0100]:
> Am 23.03.2011 12:52, schrieb Steve Doerr:
> >I'm still waiting for an official request for users to sign up to
> >the new terms. Have I missed one?
>
> No you haven't.
I thought I'd seen an announcement for the voluntary relicensing (the
phace of the ODBL
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> F. Heinen wrote:
> > Z,akskjsjkjdi
>
> That certainly wins the prize for the most coherent posting in this thread.
>
lol.
Probably the most comprehensive summary about the licence change process
itself...
Pieren
___
On 25 March 2011 10:57, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Grant Slater writes:
>>
>> Not true. ODbL licensed data *can* be forked at any time without
>> asking anyone for their blessing.
>>
>> I don't see how you come to the conclusion otherwise. The Licensing
>> Working Group consulted with a lawyer during
Grant Slater writes:
> >
>
> Not true. ODbL licensed data *can* be forked at any time without
> asking anyone for their blessing.
>
> I don't see how you come to the conclusion otherwise. The Licensing
> Working Group consulted with a lawyer during drafting of the ODbL to
> ensure that the ODbL
F. Heinen wrote:
> Z,akskjsjkjdi
That certainly wins the prize for the most coherent posting in this thread.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-tp6199509p6207146.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at
On 25 March 2011 05:49, David Murn wrote:
>
> The problem is, any fork under the existing licence can continue without
> problem. Any fork under the new licence, cannot use any data unless the
> user who contributed that data can/will give them 100% rights. Those
> against the ODbL can fork any
Z,akskjsjkjdi
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 23 mrt. 2011 om 15:19 heeft Greg Troxel het volgende
geschreven:
>
> Russ Nelson writes:
>
>> Pieren writes:
>>> Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
>>> approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this list ?
>>
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 23 mrt. 2011 om 15:19 heeft Greg Troxel het volgende
geschreven:
>
> Russ Nelson writes:
>
>> Pieren writes:
>>> Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
>>> approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this list ?
>>
>> The streng
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 00:11 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Y'know, I'm not understanding something. People whinge about CC-By-SA
> not being free enough, and that OSM should be public domain. The
> proper response to them (which I think most people agree with) is: if
> you don't like the license, for
On 25 March 2011 14:11, Russ Nelson wrote:
> So why aren't the ODbL folks being told the same thing? You want a
> different license? Hey, great, no problem, go ahead, create a fork of
> OSM. But don't expect us to follow you.
Anthony has been asking this for some time, since copying suitable
data
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> On 23 March 2011 11:37, Thomas Davie wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is the lie though. The lie would be "zomg, not many
> > users are accepting the ODbL"
>
> I don't think that would be a lie. "Much" or "little" are of course
> fuzzy but I think here you have t
On 23 March 2011 11:37, Thomas Davie wrote:
> I'm not sure this is the lie though. The lie would be "zomg, not many users
> are accepting the ODbL"
I don't think that would be a lie. "Much" or "little" are of course
fuzzy but I think here you have to use a sort of a logarithmic scale
and I hop
2011/3/24 Russ Nelson :
> On 24 March 2011 06:00, Richard Weait wrote:
> > ODbL gives us the real share-alike, open data license that we wish we
> > had available to us when the project started.
>
> Who cares about share-alike? The fact of the matter is that it's
> impossible for anyone to steal
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Assuming that Nearmap-derived data is indeed not compatible with the
> future OSM license, I fail to understand how contributing data that will
> later be deleted is a "privilege".
>
(a) the license change is not a certainty
(b) the OSM instance run by OSMF is not the
Hi,
On 03/24/11 09:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
...and many prospective contributors are being shunned away because a
new contributor doesn't have the same privileges as existing
contributors. i.e. existing contributors can use non-CT compatible
data, but new users cannot.
That's a funny distincti
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 24/03/2011 08:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>> ...and many prospective contributors are being shunned away because a
>> new contributor doesn't have the same privileges as existing
>> contributors. i.e. existing contributors can use non-CT comp
Steve Doerr gmail.com> writes:
>What data can new users not use?
I believe the Nearmap imagery of Australia is blocked for those who are editing
under the "1.0" contributor terms. They have agreed to share it under CC-BY-SA.
The CTs require pretty much a blanket grant of rights to the OSMF, whi
On 24/03/2011 08:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
...and many prospective contributors are being shunned away because a
new contributor doesn't have the same privileges as existing
contributors. i.e. existing contributors can use non-CT compatible
data, but new users cannot. Nor is there any way for a n
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:55 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 23 March 2011 20:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I don't agree. Of course it is important how much of the data will
>> survive, but it is even more important to not loose active
>> contributors.
>
> Many that were previously active contrib
On 24 March 2011 06:00, Richard Weait wrote:
> ODbL gives us the real share-alike, open data license that we wish we
> had available to us when the project started.
Who cares about share-alike? The fact of the matter is that it's
impossible for anyone to steal, fork, clone, borrow, or in any ot
Remember when Anthony's edits were reverted a few months ago? Well, Tampa is
still screwy (examples:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.13332&lon=-82.502659&zoom=18&layers=M
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.0467&lon=-82.5069&zoom=13&layers=M&relation=371155
- the latter shows how easy it is f
On 24 March 2011 06:00, Richard Weait wrote:
> It's an inoculation. A bit of a pinch, and a sore spot on the arm for
> a day, but we're all better off afterwards.
It's more like a tainted vaxination, the kind where you end up a lot worst off.
> ODbL gives us the real share-alike, open data lice
Well, according to the last LWG minutes nothing is going to change,
because the start of the phase 3 or 4 has actually been delayed by a
week (since they are missing an Italian version of the 1.2.4 CTs I'm
pretty sure you can add a couple of weeks to that).
Anyway see
http://wiki.openstreetma
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:37:19AM +, Thomas Davie wrote:
> As an aside – I only recently ticked the box because I had in error
> thought that I'd done it a long time ago. Perhaps it would be
> intelligent to nag users more about moving over. If we really want to
> push it, simply state that
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I agree. I don't particularly dislike the ODBL, but I am not
> comfortable with CT that grants the project permission to relicense
> under non-share-alike terms later.
>
> [ ... ] I find that the (pushy, in my perception) relicensing issue m
+1
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Russ Nelson writes:
>
>
> I agree. I don't particularly dislike the ODBL, but I am not
> comfortable with CT that grants the project permission to relicense
> under non-share-alike terms later.
>
_
Dont worry, next Friday the licence change will be mandatory
What does this exactly mean?
Thanks,
N.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 13:16 +0100, Pieren wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Mike N wrote:
>
> Exactly start an "OSM Meetup" group now? How to explain to them
> that if they make certain types of corrections, their work will be
> deleted?
>
>
> Are we forced to read every
Russ Nelson writes:
> Pieren writes:
> > Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
> > approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this list ?
>
> The strength of OSM is its community, not its license. If relicensing
> hurts the community (which it OBVIOUSLY is), t
On 3/23/2011 1:16 PM, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Mike N mailto:nice...@att.net>> wrote:
Exactly start an "OSM Meetup" group now? How to explain to
them that if they make certain types of corrections, their work will
be deleted?
Are we forced to read ev
Pieren writes:
> Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
> approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this list ?
The strength of OSM is its community, not its license. If relicensing
hurts the community (which it OBVIOUSLY is), then relicensing is
wrong.
It's no
No you haven't.
I personally believe that it wouldn't have been unreasonable to expect a
mail at the beginning of each major phase in the process. We probably
wouldn't be having this discussion if that had happened.
In any case, the available numbers (odbl.de) show that an overwhelming
majo
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Mike N wrote:
>
> Exactly start an "OSM Meetup" group now? How to explain to them that
> if they make certain types of corrections, their work will be deleted?
>
>
>
Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same
approximations, the same
* Steve Doerr [2011-03-23 11:52 +]:
> I'm still waiting for an official request for users to sign up to
> the new terms. Have I missed one?
I can't find the announcement, but you can voluntarily accept the new
license and Contributer Terms on your account page (which can be accessed
from: htt
I'm still waiting for an official request for users to sign up to the
new terms. Have I missed one?
Steve
On 23/03/2011 09:21, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
The LWG has posted draft minutes on the OSMF wiki.
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_109hj8txbg3
I hope there are no errors in these fig
On 3/23/2011 6:55 AM, John Smith wrote:
Many that were previously active contributors have since stopped
contributing until this mess is sorted out since they don't want to
waste more time and effort on improving things if the efforts of that
labour is thrown out at a later date.
Exactly s
On 23 March 2011 20:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I don't agree. Of course it is important how much of the data will
> survive, but it is even more important to not loose active
> contributors.
Many that were previously active contributors have since stopped
contributing until this mess is sor
2011/3/23 Thomas Davie :
> I'm not sure this is the lie though. The lie would be "zomg, not many users
> are accepting the ODbL", when what we care about is how much of the map would
> survive a transition, not how many users would.
I don't agree. Of course it is important how much of the dat
On 23 Mar 2011, at 10:09, John Smith wrote:
> On 23 March 2011 19:57, Thomas Davie wrote:
>> Not forgetting that's what's really important is what percentage of edits
>> come under the new license – the stats for that seem much more healthy.
>
> Considering that about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the edits
On 23 March 2011 19:57, Thomas Davie wrote:
> Not forgetting that's what's really important is what percentage of edits
> come under the new license – the stats for that seem much more healthy.
Considering that about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the edits in that figure would
be for some of the big imports s
On 23 Mar 2011, at 09:55, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2011/3/23 Elizabeth Dodd :
>> I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
>> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats the total number of users
>> is approaching 375,000.
>> From the LWG minutes, 163,732 users have
On 23 Mar 2011, at 09:52, Stephan Knauss wrote:
> Elizabeth Dodd writes:
>> I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
> In my opinion there are.
>> From the LWG minutes, 163,732 users have not made any edits at
>> all and 9277 users have signed up to the ODbL and CTs.
>>
2011/3/23 Elizabeth Dodd :
> I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats the total number of users
> is approaching 375,000.
> From the LWG minutes, 163,732 users have not made any edits at
> all and 9277 users have signed up to
Elizabeth Dodd writes:
I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
In my opinion there are.
From the LWG minutes, 163,732 users have not made any edits at
all and 9277 users have signed up to the ODbL and CTs.
9277 / (37-163732) = 4.5%
all users from ID 286582 on h
The LWG has posted draft minutes on the OSMF wiki.
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_109hj8txbg3
I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction.
>From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats the total number of users
is approaching 375,000.
>From the LWG minutes, 163,732
51 matches
Mail list logo