On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Brendan Morley wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> I realise no analogy is perfect. In this case a problem is that if somebody
> "breaks into" the OSM data, he is not depriving the previous owners of it.
> And it is an "Open" street map after all - we're *inviting* people into t
Anthony,
I realise no analogy is perfect. In this case a problem is that if somebody
"breaks into" the OSM data, he is not depriving the previous owners of it. And
it is
an "Open" street map after all - we're *inviting* people into the house!
By the way I'm not sure why "Copyright law is the
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 14:55, Anthony wrote:
> > Good analogy, actually. ODbL is the fancy million dollar lock (which is
> > brand new and has been tested much less than your previous $50 one).
> > Copyright law is the big huge
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 14:55, Anthony wrote:
> Good analogy, actually. ODbL is the fancy million dollar lock (which is
> brand new and has been tested much less than your previous $50 one).
> Copyright law is the big huge window sitting next to the locked door.
If you'd like to reach a wider au
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Brendan Morley wrote:
> > All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no
> real-world "exploits".
>
> I understand that actual exploits would make the problem more obvious,
> but I find the underlying logic questiona
Brendan Morley wrote:
> All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no
> real-world "exploits".
I understand that actual exploits would make the problem more obvious,
but I find the underlying logic questionable nevertheless.
No one has broken into my house for 5 years
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:39:13 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Hi,
>Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz wrote:
>>> For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been
>>> re-
>>> edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray
>>
Anthony inbox.org> writes:
>What about dual licensing under CC-BY-SA and ODbL? That way you can keep the
>CC-BY-SA contributions.Of course, it doesn't make much sense, because the whole
>point of ODbL is that it's more restrictive than CC-BY-SA.
It makes a little bit of sense: the ODbL does hav
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Mike Collinson wrote:
> We really, really, really, like to keep your and everyone's edits going
> forward. But we have to respect your choice. Under the current regime, you
> are allowing your contributions to be used only under CC BY SA 2.0. We
> could duck the i
At 09:24 PM 6/12/2009, morb@beagle.com.au wrote:
>Quoting Anthony :
>
>> Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from
>> people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the
>> contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going to
>>
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 22:32, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> By US law, this data is in and must remain in the public domain.
No, it must be in the public domain at the time of its release by the
US federal government but can be re-licensed later by anyone anywhere.
We've currently re-licensed it unde
ink at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: Frederik Ramm
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:39:13
To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Cc:
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36,
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz wrote:
>> For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been
>> re-
>> edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray
>
> If someone presents me with a boolean "Do you allow relicensing
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz wrote:
> For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been re-
> edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray
If someone presents me with a boolean "Do you allow relicensing under
the ODbL" I'll have to say no because som
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, morb@beagle.com.au wrote:
> Quoting Anthony :
> > Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from
> > people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the
> > contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going to
> >
Quoting Anthony :
> Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from
> people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the
> contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going to
> destroy too much of the database.
Wow, this whole issue ha
contributions must automatically be deleted? Given the large number of
contributors, it is a near certainty that some of them will have died by now.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
>From :balr...@gmail.com
Date :Sun Dec 06 12:28
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>
>> Using the object history is just an approximation based on the
>> assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are
>> improving existing data, and create new obj
2009/12/6 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>>
>> Pieren wrote:
>> > Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
>> > me :"take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
>> > only one then delete and recreate the
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Pieren wrote:
> > Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
> > me :"take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
> > only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
> > account th
Pieren wrote:
> Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
> me :"take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
> only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
> account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition" ?
In my
Hi!
Pieren schrieb:
> Therefore, I would like to know what "you", the contributor, thinks
> today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll:
>
> http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w
>
It is good that there is a general poll of opinion. This is something
the OSMF should have
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Ouch!
>
> So I can write a small script that touches every element in the OSM database
> to own the copyright of the whole database?!?
>
> Well, that's certainly not my understanding of copyright!
>
> Regards, ULFL
>
No, Matt corrected me. It m
2009/12/6 Matt Amos :
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren wrote:
>> So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject
>> the new licence, the data will remain anyway if "you, the last
>> contributor in the history of this element" accepts the new licence.
>> If you think that you
Pieren schrieb:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
>> position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
>> is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> As far as I unders
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
>> position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
>> is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
>>
>> Ch
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
>> I kind of miss the choise of "No, but I consider all my data PD".
>> Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
>> sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
>> Unless there is a mech
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not
> change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some
> share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more
> relaxed way (and ODbL leaves plent
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
> position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
> is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
>
> Cheers
>
As far as I understood (but some experts might
And I would like that people reading this thread forwards and
translates this call to other local lists for the widest polling as
possible. Unfortunately, the licence itself is not (yet) translated.
Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
ht
2009/12/6 Pieren :
> Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
> proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
> refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
> itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
I missed an option saying I'm in fa
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> I kind of miss the choise of "No, but I consider all my data PD".
> Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
> sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
> Unless there is a mechanisim i
Hi,
Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> I kind of miss the choise of "No, but I consider all my data PD".
> Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
> sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
> Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. "Download o
Pieren schrieb:
> Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
> proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
> refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
> itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
> As Ulf Lamping said, it will be a gun
34 matches
Mail list logo
