On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Anthony writes:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Mike N writes:
Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage
for
the cases I'm aware of.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Mike Dupont writes:
how can you take a cc-by-sa document edit it and publish it under pd?
can I just make derived works in any license i want?
Well, that's part of the problem here. How do we determine what is
Anthony writes:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Mike N writes:
Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for
the cases I'm aware of.
The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people
who
Grant Slater writes:
On 18 April 2011 05:05, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Copyright.
DRM.
DRM is a safe. The purpose of a safe is to slow you down. You purchase
a safe in terms of the amount of time it will take to be cracked. Once
it's cracked?
Copyright.
--
--my blog is at
Mike Dupont writes:
how can you take a cc-by-sa document edit it and publish it under pd?
can I just make derived works in any license i want?
Well, that's part of the problem here. How do we determine what is
someone's work, and what is a derived work? If I take a way that
someone has
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this
situation. It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing
of map tiles without any attribution or share-alike requirement
Disagree. (This has been gone over ad nauseam on
It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of months,
I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a
turnover of £100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book
publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and
Ed Avis wrote:
So do the produced map tiles (a Produced Work under the ODbL,
I think, or am I mistaken there to?) have to be distributed under
the ODbL also - or can you use any distribution terms as long
as it has attribution - or what?
ODbL 4.3 allows you to distribute Produced Works
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
ODbL 4.3 allows you to distribute Produced Works under any licence as
long as you provide attribution.
[...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice
associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any
Person
Ed Avis eda at waniasset.com writes:
[...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice
associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any
Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise
exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was
Ed Avis wrote:
To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to
make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask
downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any
particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to
make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask
downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any
On Apr 18, 2011 9:30 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 18 April 2011 05:05, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm writes:
No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will
have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just
Am 17.04.2011 10:17, schrieb Ed Avis:
andrzej zaborowski balrogg at gmail.com writes:
I know a relatively big project that's currently using OSM data under
CC-By-SA and may be in a nasty surprise when they find OSM is no
longer suitable.
Fortunately, there is an easy way to fix this: keep
2011/4/18 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
I should note that I find the bulk of your email to be reasonable and
thoughtful, whether I agree with specific points or not. So it
appears now that I'm picking on you by singling out one point from
your reasonable email. Sorry. :-)
[ ... ]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
2011-04-17 23:54, Frederik Ramm skrev:
No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will
have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain
copyright.
You just have to get into a store and give them money to
Grant Slater openstreetmap at firefishy.com writes:
There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal
ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the
community chose to ignore.
This is a good reason to introduce a new licence but it's not a reason against
andrzej zaborowski balrogg at gmail.com writes:
I know a relatively big project that's currently using OSM data under
CC-By-SA and may be in a nasty surprise when they find OSM is no
longer suitable.
Fortunately, there is an easy way to fix this: keep CC-BY-SA available as an
option in addition
uation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples
by now.
It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some
proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you
were a member of the OSMF board entrusted with our data's safe keeping,
would
So we need to change then ? Tell them to reconsiderate
there legal model. OSM gives, they receive !
I am perfectly happy with someone deciding NOT to use
what we have to offer !!!
If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half
missed the point.
There are people who have
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half
missed the point.
There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal
ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the
community chose to
80n wrote:
There is zero chance that any large organisation would try to use
OSM's CC-BY-SA licensed map data and think that they would
get away with it.
I agree with you here FSVO large.
I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and
deliberately using OSM data
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of
months, I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with
a turnover of £100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a
book publisher, all infringing our
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
For them, it's not
about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk.
Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM map
data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable. Which would be great
for us,
Ed,
Ed Avis wrote:
Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM map
data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable.
No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will
have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain
Ed Avis wrote:
What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this
situation. It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing
of map tiles without any attribution or share-alike requirement
Disagree. (This has been gone over ad nauseam on legal-talk, I'm just
pointing it
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and
deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not
about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Ed,
Ed Avis wrote:
Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM
map
data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable.
No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data
Frederik Ramm writes:
No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will
have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain
copyright.
Did you sign an agreement to use your personal navigation device?
Almost certainly not. So what's to stop you from
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:29:29 +0100
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining
the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and
now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in
good
Mike N writes:
Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for
the cases I'm aware of.
The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people
who violate it. We have a license which allows us to do that now. Is
anybody suing the copyright infringers?
No,
Frederik Ramm writes:
We're not sacrificing countries. We saw that we have built our project
on (legal) sand,
Nonsense. Your choice of what to tag and how to tag it is a creative
choice. You own that expression of the idea of a map. There is no
reason for you to wait to sue somebody for
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:09 -0700, Kai Krueger wrote:
Dermot McNally wrote:
FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but
it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can
see as an outsider.
No, the vote part really isn't that difficult.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
I never followed the wikipedia change, but did they create a new
untested licence? Did they ask users to agree to the licence over a 12
month period? How many changes/revisions did their licence undergo
between being
Dermot McNally writes:
But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in,
even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly
consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to
be a part of.
In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from
On 16 April 2011 07:00, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data?
Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data?
A lot of the differences of opinion on this matter are finding
expression in the words people
On 16 April 2011 08:28, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from whom. Don't
presume an answer without first asking the question.
Actually, I have thought widely on this. My slightly earlier email
this morning outlines my thought on what
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:11:11 +0200
Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Hi,
David Murn wrote:
Out of interest Grant, what
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:34:20 +1000
David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:10 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult
decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the
only open source project to
On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing?
I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I
am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting
an opinion if these people have not
On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork
has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors
retaining their own copyright.
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/
On 16 April 2011 17:42, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally
abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal
of the proposal, shouldn't it?
There has been so many issues with the new license, the new
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodded...@billiau.net wrote:
OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork
has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors
retaining their own copyright.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
if it isn't about time to readdress the area of merging data from different
sources? Rather than throwing everything in the one pot and mangling it,
creating a more open data interface so that third parties can supply
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:42:00 +0100
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing?
I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to
legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government
have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so
my own
On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 16 April 2011 01:29, Dermot McNallyderm...@gmail.com wrote:
This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining
the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and
now very likely a foundation of data created
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 10:29 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
We simply draw up a document
that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms,
which says I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the
additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 01:29 AM, Dermot McNally wrote:
FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but
it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can
see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted
about the change. On the other,
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government
have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of
On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK
government
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even
On 16 April 2011 19:49, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having
the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a
problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend
that common
Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it
doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for
that. I have been beaten into submission.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees
On 16 April 2011 22:10, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for
No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change
license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of
the desire
Ian,
On 04/16/2011 02:10 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it
doesn't look like I will.
You asked when the community of OpenStreetMap was asked about the
license change.
...
No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we
I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the
community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that
it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never
thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that
that was OBVIOUSLY so
My thinking on this is very similar. I have no particular objection to the
new licence and contributor terms - I don't really care which licence my
contributions are governed by.
I am very surprised at the apparent tolerance to loss of data from the map
for the sake of transferring to a more
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote:
I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing
when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely)
doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new
licence or contributor terms - From
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 04:13 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
But, as you said, that poll was unofficial, only included 500 people,
and if I remember correctly had some very confusing options at first.
My guess is that more than 10.000 people have been informed of the poll
(via the lists I mentioned). The
I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing
when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely)
doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new
licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki
pages, it is not
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:
much less be asked:
Do you think the house is on fire yes/no?
Please point to some real flames.
In all the time the licence discussions have been happening, nobody has
mentioned
*one* *single* *case* where the licence of the map isn't respected and
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to
lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status
quo. Doing nothing is not an option.
And yet we've been doing nothing
On 16 April 2011 17:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about
anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must
choose their license according to what is compatible with OS?
...
I say to you the
2011/4/16 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com:
... all those people currently tracing thousands
of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air.
fresh air is not the worst ingredient to OSMapping.
cheers,
Martin
___
talk
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 07:47 PM, Kevin Peat wrote:
Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the
license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those
people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as
well take a break and get some fresh air.
If people are indeed
Ed,
On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples
by now.
It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some
proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you
were a member of the
Frederik Ramm writes:
It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some
proprietary giant's database.
Worry about the license less and map more. The more we map, the more
value there is in participating in the community as a peer rather than
a parasite.
--
--my blog is
On 16 April 2011 19:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If people are indeed doing that then I would *definitely* suggest the fresh
air option, no matter what we intend to do license-wise; see recent imports
discussion on talk-gb (Adding a further 250,000 roads quickly using a
Bot).
Hi,
On 16 April 2011 10:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
At this point it's only known that there's an unspecified non-zero
part of the community which wants OSM to switch license. Not everyone
needs to be true to that part of the
So hard to know which message to reply to in this very long chain. I'll
try to pick out the main points in response to my message:
*Ordnance Survey Open Data*: As far as I am aware our current licence etc
is compatible with the OS licence, so by changing ours, we are making a
conscious
Frederik, do you mean to say that after all these years of the project you
haven't seen a single example of any company - large or small - taking the OSM
data and being legally untouchable?
Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than capable
legal departments, who are
Sorry my last message was a bit intemperate.
What I should have asked was this: if you still believe that some big firm can
'rip off' the OSM map data with impunity, despite the fact that this
conspicuously has not happened (the opposite in fact - our licence is
universally
respected among large
Kevin Peat kevin at kevinpeat.com writes:
My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly
result
in a cleanly licensed dataset?
I doubt that it can. This is one additional reason to continue offering the old
licence as a dual-licence option. Those users of the map
Ed Avis wrote:
Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than
capable
legal departments, who are more than capable of taking advantage of such a
loophole, that there is slightly more to it than the simple mantra of 'our
licence does not apply'?
Yes, there is more
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 09:21 PM, Kevin Peat wrote:
Thanks for your thoughtful answer. It is certainly a lot more detailed
than anything I have read before. My first impression is how can a
process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed
dataset?
I assume that decisions will
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
what, exactly, would persuade you
that this isn't a realistic possibility?
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for
example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place,
perhaps a city only, incorporating
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for
example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place,
perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it
either obvious (i.e. we can easily
On 16/04/11 22:37, Ed Avis wrote:
Hmm... so the fact that such grabbing of data has never occurred does not count
as evidence for you. This is problematic, since in general things only go to
court if the legal status is questionable. If it's reasonably certain, the side
that's in the wrong
On 16 April 2011 23:37, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for
example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place,
perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Ed,
On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of
examples
by now.
It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some
proprietary
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example,
Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a
city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either
Frederik Ramm writes:
On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
what, exactly, would persuade you
that this isn't a realistic possibility?
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for
example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place,
I
80n writes:
The only thing that has happened so far is
that the license change process has been so protracted that it has
damaged OSM much more than any imagined threat could possibly have
done.
Here, here! If anybody is SO bored that fiddling with the license
seems like fun, come edit
On 16 April 2011 23:36, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example,
Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a
city only,
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:02:16 +0200
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and
talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a
working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. In licensing
terms, this house
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:20:27 -0400
Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the
community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that
it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never
thought it would
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:50:03 +0100
Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half
missed the point.
There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal
ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we
Russ Nelson wrote:
Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers
suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license
change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all.
I wonder why you believe that the only way a license change can possibly
help OSM is by
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:00 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote:
... it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in
Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be
resolved before forcing people to re-licence.
Hi,
On 17 April 2011 01:22, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. However, I want to unambiguously
have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide
attribution for every single mapper. I also consider improved
compatibility with other
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Mike N writes:
Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for
the cases I'm aware of.
The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people
who violate it.
You've got it exactly
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot
writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license,
then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:36 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example,
Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a
city only,
Tobias Knerr writes:
Russ Nelson wrote:
Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers
suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license
change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all.
I wonder why you believe that the only way a license
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Tobias Knerr writes:
Russ Nelson wrote:
Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers
suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license
change will hurt OSM, and not
On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote:
Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of
incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think
they haven't? Perhaps our data is not good
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote:
Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of
incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Do you expect any positive outcome from this, or is it for moral reasons
that you choose this course of action? There are regions in OSM where a
visible no vote will lead to your data being re-surveyed and
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
The revert script used to remove Anthony's edits (which were traced
from Google) was a basic revert script which only used API methods.
There were also mistakes made like reverting the items anthony had
deleted
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
