I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
individual mappers. I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
concerns so ably, by consulting with
Richard Weait schrieb:
> I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
> we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
> implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
> individual mappers. I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
> con
On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:03, Ulf Lamping
wrote:
> Richard Weait schrieb:
>> I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
>> we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
>> implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
>> individual mappe
On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Richard Weait schrieb:
>> I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
>> we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
>> implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
>> individual mappers.
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
> > Richard Weait schrieb:
> >> I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
> >> we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
> >> implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
> >>
Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
>>> Richard Weait schrieb:
I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
implement a lice
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Jonas Krückel wrote:
>
> Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
> >>> Richard Weait schrieb:
> I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
> we, as a community
Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
> On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a
>> license change at all.
>
> Sorry but this topic was many times on many lists, it's on the wiki. If you
> didn't care then why do you care now?
On 6 Dec 2009, at 10:25 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
>> On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a license
>>> change at all.
>> Sorry but this topic was many times on many lists, it's on the wiki. I
Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
> On 6 Dec 2009, at 10:25 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>> Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
>>> On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a
license change at all.
>>> Sorry but this topic was many tim
Jonas Krückel jonas-krueckel.de> writes:
>I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look at
>this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ and
>you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA.
That summary page is great but unfortunately i
2009/12/7 Ed Avis :
> Jonas Krückel jonas-krueckel.de> writes:
>
>>I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look at
>>this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ and
>>you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA.
>
> That summary page
Grant Slater firefishy.com> writes:
>>>http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/
>>That summary page is great but unfortunately it's not what is on offer.
>>The real text of the ODbL is much more complex,
>Quote from Creative Commons BY SA Summary Disclaimer:
>"The Commons Deed is n
13 matches
Mail list logo
