On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:56:57PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
> Limiting a hypothetical (what should it be called? referendum?) to
> just active contributors might exclude some who have just agreed to
> the license upgrade. Is this the right thing to do? Should the
> hypothetical referendum(?) b
Liz schrieb:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will
remain available under the old license.
If you take somewhere between one third and one quarter of the data for a well
defined area and lock it up from further
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will
> remain available under the old license.
If you take somewhere between one third and one quarter of the data for a well
defined area and lock it up from further edits on OSM
Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
On 17 Jul 2010, at 2:05 , Heiko Jacobs wrote:
I cannot accept a process with loss of data.
If there is a loss of data I will leave OSM.
there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the
old data will remain available under the old license.
This "last-CC-
f the subsequent edits were
done by people who agree to the new license.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
>From :mailto:ascho...@gmail.com
Date :Sat Jul 17 13:07:09 America/Chicago 2010
On 17 Jul 2010, at 2:05 , Heiko Jacobs wrote:
>
> I cannot accept
Hi,
80n wrote:
Indeed, we've been suffering from this license-twiddling induced stasis
for far too long now. That's why I've proposed that the LWG/OSMF
achieve a clear and undeniable mandate by September 1st or just drop the
whole thing. We can't afford to let this cancer continue eating awa
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>
> On 17 Jul 2010, at 2:05 , Heiko Jacobs wrote:
>
> >
> > I cannot accept a process with loss of data.
> > If there is a loss of data I will leave OSM.
> >
>
> there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will
> r
On 17 Jul 2010, at 2:05 , Heiko Jacobs wrote:
>
> I cannot accept a process with loss of data.
> If there is a loss of data I will leave OSM.
>
there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will remain
available under the old license.
> The only possibility to avoid los
Tobias Knerr schrieb:
Loss of data is the primary concern about the license change for quite a
lot of mappers. Dealing with their worries is worth the delay.
+1
After reading ODbL I would say yes, OSM should change licence,
but after reading the process proposed for changing licence
including a
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 20:56, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> Richard Weait wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> Or more simply. Ask users if they are willing to proceed. Calculate
>>> and show users the results. Then ask users if that is good enough to
>>> make it "
Richard Weait wrote:
>
> Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active contributors and a
> minimum of three weeks for the vote. Would an additional three-week
> or longer voting period, added to the process now be a problem?
>
Given that the whole process has taken on the order of two year
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
> >> Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?:
> >>
> >> ... steps leading to today
> >> - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not
> >> - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept.
> >> - somebody processes all the results to show data eff
On 15 July 2010 04:56, Richard Weait wrote:
> [I re-added attribution for John Smith that appears to have been
> dropped during context trimming.]
Pretty sure Kai was responsible for this sentiment on the legal list thread.
> Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active contributors and a
>
[I re-added attribution for John Smith that appears to have been
dropped during context trimming.]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Richard Weait wrote:
>> John Smith wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> Allow contributors to vote before the change over occurs, not just if
>>> they agree to
14 matches
Mail list logo
