On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:18:41PM +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/11/16 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au:
Maybe I missed something, but when were the decisions made?
back in 2008
The decisions had to be “the
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
The CT is a separate issue, and that was only ratified in (I believe)
2010 in its current form.
Ratified by the LWG. Neither the membership nor the community got to
vote on it.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:01:00 -0500
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com
wrote:
The CT is a separate issue, and that was only ratified in (I
believe) 2010 in its current form.
Ratified by the LWG. Neither the membership nor the
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:18:41PM +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/11/16 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au:
Maybe I missed something, but when were the decisions made?
back in 2008
The decisions had to be “the current licence is not suitable, we should
find something more
Am 16.11.2010 23:17, schrieb Serge Wroclawski:
If you honestly feel this way, explain in clear steps what the OSMF
could do to work with dissenters that doesn't include stopping the
current process of migrating to a new license.
Not particularly focussed on the dissenters of the new license, I
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:17:00 -0500
Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
The other reason this is complicated, though, is that OSM started with
a faulty process of not requiring copyright assignment, which meant
that every contributor had to be handled separately. That's being
fixed now
On 16 November 2010 02:19, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been a little selective in quoting your message but I think you have
correctly identified the split. Germany and the UK with high mapper density
are probably for the new license and dumping the older data other parts of
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com wrote:
Personally I don't care if the current license is weak as most
organisations will respect its spirit and if a few don't who cares, it
doesn't devalue our efforts one cent.
I think if there is any case of people stealing
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Mike Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com wrote:
Personally I don't care if the current license is weak as most
organisations will respect its spirit and if a few don't who cares, it
2010/11/16 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au:
Maybe I missed something, but when were the decisions made?
back in 2008
That works great where youve got tiles full of lots of data, but what
about in regional areas? If a mapper wants to contribute data, is OSM
not interested in that data,
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:18 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/11/16 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au:
Maybe I missed something, but when were the decisions made?
back in 2008
Maybe thats the problem then. Ive been a mapper since 2007 but only
actively involved in ths
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:06 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
back in 2008
Maybe thats the problem then. Ive been a mapper since 2007 but only
actively involved in ths communication process since possibly after the
decision was made.
I wholeheartedly agree that the process has
I think that the problems and implications of the change were not well
explained or even understood at the time. I'm not even sure they are today
by many people.
My training in computer system design suggests that listing the requirements
and concerns of the various users might be a useful
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 18:06 -0500, john whelan wrote:
The decisions have been made, so it's time to accept them or if you
don't, to leave.
Maybe I missed something, but when were the decisions made? Last I
heard, people were still being asked for their opinion. Did I miss the
announcement of
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
If someone was to approach OSM and say they were using OSM data in their
project, but their projects licence was changing and therefore they'd
like OSM to relicence our data under some licence theyve created for
their
I've been a little selective in quoting your message but I think you have
correctly identified the split. Germany and the UK with high mapper density
are probably for the new license and dumping the older data other parts of
the world that don't have the luxury of such a high density of mappers
On 13/11/2010 20:01, john whelan wrote:
Have a look around Turkey Street Station in Enfield sometime in North
London where I understand Steve C has done a lot of mapping and you
are literally reduced to a couple of footpaths.
Whilst agreeing with you in principle, could you expand on why you
It doesn't seem clear to me what the plan is concerning the existing data.
I get the impression that a number of people feel we should throw away any
data that isn't licensed in the new way which in Enfield means practically
the entire road network.
I haven't seen any information on what is
I know we're not supposed to talk about the license change on this
list, but with all the discussion over the last few days about the new
license change map, I wanted to put together a website about the OSM
contributor terms and the ongoing issues with people who want to fork
OSM, either to make a
I'd like to be reassured that any effort I put into mapping will be useful,
ie we'll have a useful map at the end, not a blank page with two footpaths
on it. Have a look around Turkey Street Station in Enfield sometime in
North London where I understand Steve C has done a lot of mapping and you
*The decisions have been made, so it's time to accept them or if you
don't, to leave.*
Thank you for your views on the OSM community. In my view it is a community
and the relationship does need nurturing.
Nowhere in my post did I express a view that a change of license is bad.
However changes
Look down your entire message was under my text.
Cheerio John
On 13 November 2010 18:44, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a really unfair thing of you to have done, to take a very long
(1 page) email, quote a single sentence and then repost it to a
group.
- Serge
This is a really unfair thing of you to have done, to take a very long
(1 page) email, quote a single sentence and then repost it to a
group.
- Serge
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
23 matches
Mail list logo
