Am 05.10.2010 17:37, schrieb 80n:
How would a user know which platforms they are able to send
contributions to? Is there some kind of contribution hierarchy with PD
at the top and proprietary at the bottom? Should there be a registry
somewhere?
Where is the average contributor to OSM is
On Tue, October 5, 2010 23:50, 80n wrote:
snip
Are there any easy and simple steps that can be taken that could make the
existence of multiple OSMs a whole lot less painful?
Yes. Combine them all into one project. Call it OSM.
Best wishes,
Andrew
I think this discussion should first be put on hold until we develop
and test the technology needed.
when it all works well, I am sure the main osm site will love to use it.
mike
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Andrew Errington
a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, October 5, 2010 23:50,
On 5 October 2010 17:37, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
I'm particularly interested in how it could be made easier for
contributors to handle the situation. How will they know which OSM they
should
On 06/10/10 13:45, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
How about one OSM project with multiple databases?
I raised that possibility with OSMF and others. OSMF did not seem too
keen. The discussion was here:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/2010-August/date.html
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:45 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote:
On 5 October 2010 17:37, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
I'm particularly interested in how it could be made easier for
It's inevitable that there will be at least one fork of OSM content if the
license is switched to ODbL + CT.
There are already other projects using the OSM software stack (CommonMap,
USGS etc) but none that I know of that are yet using OSM's content. This
will surely change if the license is
Hi,
80n wrote:
I'm particularly interested in how it could be made easier for
contributors to handle the situation. How will they know which OSM they
should contribute to?
I'd prefer if you chose the wording: Which collaborative mapping
platform... - because there can only be one OSM
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
I'm particularly interested in how it could be made easier for
contributors to handle the situation. How will they know which OSM they
should contribute to?
I'd prefer if you chose the wording:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It's inevitable that there will be at least one fork of OSM content if the
license is switched to ODbL + CT.
That's yet to be seen, unless you're saying that you personally will
make it happen.
So the question I'd like to ask is,
80n 80n80n at gmail.com writes:
It's inevitable that there will be at least one fork of OSM content if the
license is switched to ODbL + CT.
Just to be clear: there is a big 'if' in the above assertion.
I don't think it is inevitable that OSM will split into multiple projects,
because I don't
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
It's inevitable that there will be at least one fork of OSM content if
the
license is switched to ODbL + CT.
That's yet to be seen, unless you're saying
12 matches
Mail list logo
