On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:29:51PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
>
> > No, it would be simpler for OSM.
> If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give
> it to anyone under any terms. Why would y
Dermot McNally writes:
> Wouldn't it be much simpler for those users to simply accept CT?
No. Some guy is going around claiming that everyone who accepts the CT
supports the licensng change and supports the CT and ODbL as the
preferred licenses. Some people who do not are not comfortable signing
Dermot McNally schrieb:
On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiser wrote:
I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to
harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the
outcome, though.
The harm he's doing is to the other mappers in the areas he has
Dermot McNally writes:
> On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
>> I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to
>> harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the
>> outcome, though.
>
> The harm he's doing is to the other mappers in the a
Hi,
I am moving this over to legal-talk because that's where it belongs.
Florian Lohoff wrote:
This should have been an option right from the beginning.
PD and ODBL/CT are non mutual exclusive options but the frontend makes
it one - So i am unable to click on PD without accepting CT/ODBL which
I'm staying out of the discussion, just please remember the PD-checkbox
has no legal meaning, as documented here:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F
Any retroactive change just isn't going to work.
Simon
Am 16.06.2011 22:08, schrieb
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:49:36PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> additionally clicked the PD checkbox. It would be possible, from a
> database point of view, to set the PD option without setting the
> "agreed to CT" field. We should do this manually for those users who
> haven't agreed. In all othe
On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to
> harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the
> outcome, though.
The harm he's doing is to the other mappers in the areas he has mapped.
Dermot
--
-
Thomas Davie schrieb:
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give it to
anyone under any terms. Why would you not contribute under the new CTs if
you're
Hi,
Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
There are at least a few users who have disagreed to ODbL
but are ok with PD (or CC0).
From phase 4 on we only allow people to edit if they have agreed to the
CT, so we'd definitely have to disable the account of that user. But
since his data is available under
On 16 June 2011 16:55, Thomas Davie wrote:
> If we convince them to release under PD, then we can take their work and then
> license it as ODbL, so not wanting their work licensed ODbL precludes
> releasing under PD.
Notwithstanding the fact that much of the reasoning here would not be
out of
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Thomas Davie wrote:
>
> If we convince them to release under PD, then we can take their work and then
> license it as ODbL, so not wanting their work licensed ODbL precludes
> releasing under PD.
But then it would under the account / liability of the user import
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:27, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dermot McNally wrote:
>>
>> Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM
>> mappers. Floris' comments talk about "saving as much data as
>> possible", by context, saving it for "OSM"
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> No, it would be simpler for OSM.
If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give it to
anyone under any terms. Why would you not contribute under the new CTs if
you're willing to accept any te
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dermot McNally wrote:
>
> Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM
> mappers. Floris' comments talk about "saving as much data as
> possible", by context, saving it for "OSM". The easiest way to do this
> is as I have suggested.
I inde
On 16 June 2011 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> No, it would be simpler for OSM.
Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM
mappers. Floris' comments talk about "saving as much data as
possible", by context, saving it for "OSM". The easiest
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
Regards,
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:derm...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:59 PM
Aan: Floris Looijesteijn
CC: OpenStreetMap Talk
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0
On 16 June 2011 15:34, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
> Could we then export change 2 to a PD database first and
> import that into ODbL OSM?
Wouldn't it be much simpler for those users to simply accept CT? PD is
a superset of CT and ODbL after all...
Dermot
--
---
Hey,
There are at least a few users who have disagreed to ODbL
but are ok with PD (or CC0).
Would it, in a ODbL OSM world, be possible to move their
data out of current OSM and into a PD project and after that,
reimport to ODbL OSM?
In other words:
For the most complicated example, a way edited
19 matches
Mail list logo