Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that
Francis Davey, who also claims to be a lawyer, gave an opposite opinion.
CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by
Which is a false premise, map data isn't factual data and copyright
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
It's much closer to what's been
happening in the Arab States this year:
There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb
On 24 Jun 2011, at 06:32, Mike Dupont wrote:
but being locked out of osm is also not pretty.
No one is locked out of OSM. You are free to contribute under the CTs, as you
always have been.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 23/06/2011 17:35, John Smith wrote:
On 24 June 2011 01:27, Robert Scottli...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole
list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your
point?
My point is, why should other sites
Nic wrote:
Basically all you are saying is that mailing lists are a bad way
to
measure support. And I agree 100%.
Can you prove that the average contributor thinks that the
benefits* of the ODbL exceeds the cost of
implementing it** ? Then I will personally start telling people
that
they
On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or
the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.;
Hope that helps. I am personally
On 24 June 2011 18:10, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever they are
- is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say
move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever they are
- is there a fosmf?)
There is no fosmf, and I rather hope there never will be.
seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
did with the original CTs;
On 24/06/2011 10:21, John Smith wrote:
On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or
the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page
On 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and
every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the
important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes
to
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each
and
every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
+100
Cheers colliar
Am 23.06.2011 01:35, schrieb john whelan:
I absolutely agree.
Cheerio John
On 22 June 2011 19:29, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au
mailto:da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 13:49 -0700, Steve
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each
and
every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is
the
important
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each
and
every extraction
80n wrote:
The one exception is currently Potlatch which is embedded and
obviously displays map content.
Because Potlatch is embedded, you are encouraged to put any copyright
notices you wish in the embedding page. :)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
--
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
The attribution was put into the JS
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why
that doesn't display.
I'm no expert, but see
http://dev.openlayers.org/docs/files/OpenLayers/Control/Attribution-
js.html
your map seems to be lacking one in the var map declaration.
Ed
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
I just noticed that osm.org is missing
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
SomeoneElse wrote:
Odd. zoom in to the dizzy heights of 16 (in Denmark WA FWIW) and you get
picture coming soon. I picked Denmark because it's somewhere that I've
been and added stuff (to OSM, but would also
On 23 June 2011 12:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be
The license on archive.org and all metadata is in a standard place,
http://www.archive.org/details/SharedMap2
It can be updated at any time, seems that the sources are not stated.
mike
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.comwrote:
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont
John Smith wrote:
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why
that doesn't display.
You probably need a DG file instead.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
2011-06-23 John Smith:
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
I just
On 23 June 2011 21:00, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright License' link in the sidebar on the left.
Nice and obscure...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the Copyright
License link.
Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at
the bottom right side of the map.
The Demo archive.org Tile Hosting map, on
2011-06-23 John Smith:
On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the Copyright
License link.
Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at
the bottom right side of the map.
Maybe you just
Steve Coast wrote:
80n wrote:
A: We will definitely stop using OSM as soon as OSM switches to ODbL
for it's output.
Q: Now when will that be?
Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to give
you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have.
On 23 June 2011 21:47, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list
attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices
(because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that
use multiple sources
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
robert.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM...
Hi,
On 06/23/2011 01:51 PM, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote:
So in theory, while in this interim stage, we could stop providing any new
data as CC-by-SA and instead offer a frozen CC-by-SA planet dump, with all
work since that freeze available as an additional ODbL diff?
Legal subtleties are
Hi,
On 06/23/2011 01:53 PM, Robert Scott wrote:
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I understand that it is also possible to upload original content to
fosm.org, so you're probalby talking about less than 100%. 99.999% or so ;)
Bye
Frederik
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries to hide any
kind of attribution, yet you
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make
your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;)
Fair enough Frederik, if it's a legal subtlety then I probably don't want to
know! :)
But I do feel slightly uncomfortable
On 23 June 2011 22:20, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote:
But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed
should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a
CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.
Erm how is
Before printing, think about the environment.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Graham Stewart (GrahamS) [mailto:gra...@dalmuti.net]
Verzonden: Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:20 PM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name
and
servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it.
That is an odd way of saying the the majority is always right, and if
wrong
they are
Hi,
On 06/23/2011 02:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it.
That's half as bad. Imagine that happening after country-wide
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it.
So I feel it very unfair to call the
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Regards,
Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc
Hey, cool. This is fun. Can we all join in?
cheers
Richard Fairhurst, MA (Cantab)
--
View this message in context:
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I find this ironic, if not out right amusing,
On 24 June 2011 01:02, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the
OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to
OpenStreetMap.
For starters you are confusing OSM contributors with OSM-F who
@Eugene
Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
forking:
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork
@Graham,
My reaction was just against the
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
On 24 June 2011 01:02, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under
the OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to
OpenStreetMap.
For starters you
On 24 June 2011 01:27, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole
list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your
point?
My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even
OSM-F isn't willing
On Thursday 23 June 2011, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
@Eugene
Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
forking:
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
2011-06-23 John Smith:
Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0:
As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy
attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as
On 24 June 2011 01:41, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be
answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how
unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets
On 24 June 2011 01:49, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
2011-06-23 John Smith:
Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0:
As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy
John Smith:
On 24 June 2011 01:49, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
2011-06-23 John Smith:
Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0:
As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to
On 24 June 2011 02:00, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
There are two plausible legal interpretations:
- the original author is OpenStreetMap
- the original author are a lot of individuals
You left off companies that have donated data.
No matter which interpretation you choose, your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Op 23-06-11 17:41, Robert Scott schreef:
Yet people somehow still know what Linux is and where to get it,
because it tends to center itself around where all the competent
people are.
Now think this in BSD perspective. And ask yourself how your
2011-06-23 John Smith:
I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you.
Oh so it's a case of do as I say, not as I do...
No, it's a case of don't feed the troll.
If someone else still reads this thread and is honestly interested in
related legal matters, I suggest to open
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:22 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
@Eugene
Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
forking:
Try
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:49 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Every open source project I can think of has a fixed set of principals
by which the code will be licensed under, and the license defines the
sort of people that will join and help out, those requiring you to
sign
On 24 June 2011 02:36, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Signing your rights away is not necessarily a bad thing. (The FSF
asks you to do exactly that when contributing to GNU software
projects, for good reasons, though others may rightfully disagree.)
2. Anyway, the OSM CT does
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 20:50 +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some
2011/6/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You
must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the
Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...].
-- Tobias Knerr
I understand from this that the
On 24 June 2011 04:14, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
I pointed this out once and the response was that osm.org doesnt need
attribution because there is a logo in the top-left corner.
I guess the same logic could be applied here, since the name
'OpenStreetMap' is on the fosm.org
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:22 +0200, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
@Eugene
Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
forking:
Try
David Murn schrieb:
Now, say half a dozen developers decided to take the GPL codebase, call
it FreeLinux and continue development, while encouraging anyone who ever
contributed to the project under GPL and wants to continue using that
licence, to come over to their project.
If they wouldn't
On 24 June 2011 04:43, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and
that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and
provide it under PD myself.
Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected
On 6/22/2011 5:16 PM, David Murn wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:25 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
Well there's one other aspect which is there are chunks of data only
available to OpenStreetMap and nobody else.
Does the data exclusively available under the ODbL outweigh the data
exclusively
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:35 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
You seem to be the one disrupting things, as far as I'm concerned I
attributed to FOSM who in turn attributes their sources.
+1 there is a chain of attribution. All the data is available, fosm includes
osm data so it
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a
country wanting to change their form of government from presidential
to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the
winning side
Nic Roets wrote:
But I also don't know why you three compare the license change
to ordinary democratic processes. It's much closer to what's
been happening in the Arab States this year.
ticks off 'Godwin' on the Hyperbole Bingo card
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Nic,
Nic Roets wrote:
A modern democratic government would have found a way to defuse the
situation long ago.
I've actually thought about that for quite a while and came to the
conclusion that the problems we're seeing are probably due to OSM being
such an unstructured, little-governed
This discussion makes me sad.
My personal motivation in life is : everybody should live in freedom
. Derived from this:
alternatives are good, monopoly is bad
fosm; I embrace the initiative, but you have a lot of marketing to
do if you want people to come to FOSM. A website with broken links,
2011-06-23 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/6/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You
must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the
Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...].
I understand
John Smith schrieb:
On 24 June 2011 04:43, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and
that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and
provide it under PD myself.
Unlikely, maps were the first thing
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
I've actually thought about that for quite a while and came to the
conclusion that the problems we're seeing are probably due to OSM being
such an unstructured, little-governed project.
Hey, I've been saying this for weeks! (Not in here, though...) ;-)
I indeed believe
John Smith wrote:
Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright
Um, no. The first thing to be protected by copyright was an Old Irish
psalter. Is and gabais Fergus dóib daur mór ro-boí for lár ind liss assa
frénaib, etc.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
More importantly, if fosm is so much more legitimate and important than
OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on our list?
You're the one making a big song and dance about things.
I wouldn't say I'm making a song and dance
On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
It's much closer to what's been
happening in the Arab States this year:
There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and
Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM.
In this mailing lists it
On 24 June 2011 07:39, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that
Francis Davey, who also claims to be a lawyer, gave an opposite opinion.
CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by
Which is a
On 24 June 2011 08:49, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
It's much closer to what's been
happening in the Arab States this year:
There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and
Arab
On 23 June 2011 23:58, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making.
So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me...
___
talk mailing list
On 24 June 2011 14:32, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
On 23 June 2011 23:58, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making.
So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Milo van der Linden m...@dogodigi.netwrote:
fosm; I embrace the initiative, but you have a lot of marketing to
do if you want people to come to FOSM. A website with broken links, no
information about who initiated the fork or any insight about the who,
why
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
jaa...@helleranta.com wrote:
As I suggest in the subject line: I'd really love us not to punish the
world's disadvantaged with our license/CT disagreements.
That's why fosm.org exists. No data will get deleted. It will continue
to
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to
sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
Steve
On Jun 22, 2011, at 11:18 AM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
jaa...@helleranta.com wrote:
As I suggest in the
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to
sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
I think they will stop it as soon as last CC dump is released
Fabio
Hi,
80n wrote:
That's why fosm.org http://fosm.org exists. No data will get
deleted. It will continue to exist and can be updated at fosm.org
http://fosm.org.
If you are worried that your data is threatened then that's because you
are now looking in the wrong place. Fosm has more data
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue
to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
1. fosm.org is functional, you should try it.
2. When will the license become incompatible? The
On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com
mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote:
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional)
continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
1. fosm.org http://fosm.org
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:51:43PM +0100, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue
to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?
1. fosm.org is functional, you should
jaakkoh wrote:
This may well be my first post to the talk list
Brave soul. :) (But welcome, seriously.)
Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2
I'm seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange,
too).
Don't get too disheartened.
To take your
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
**
On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue
to sync with OSM when the licenses are
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote:
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it
will be a long time yet.
Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop
using OSM
Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
do you mean the picture coming soon at zoom level 7 or 8? Are you really
planing to use pre-rendered tiles at archive.org for the whole world,
updated by a handful local computers a la BOINC
80n wrote:
From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org.
quite obvious
http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count_2.png
You may be a bit confused with the scales.
--
View this message in context:
On 6/22/2011 1:26 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com
mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote:
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan
suggests it will be a long time yet.
Timing
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
**
On 6/22/2011 1:26 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote:
2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests
On 6/22/2011 1:46 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com
mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 6/22/2011 1:26 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com
mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote:
On
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 21:17 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map
Maker were to post a similar message. Hey, don't like how things go in
OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved!
Except that
a) Map
Well there's one other aspect which is there are chunks of data only
available to OpenStreetMap and nobody else.
On 6/22/2011 4:22 PM, David Murn wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 21:17 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map
Maker were to
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 13:49 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to
give you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have.
Such a pity you dont extend the same feelings to those 'yes guys' who
wish to change their acceptance.
Why do you feel you have a liability?
Steve
On 6/22/2011 4:29 PM, David Murn wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 13:49 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to
give you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have.
Such a pity you
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
