On 19 July 2010 20:05, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
> wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
> at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
> license change is n
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a s
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number
> of people than all of
John,
John Smith wrote:
I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics,
I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
with what is on the table now.
you are literally risking an out
right rejection of ODBL because
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm :
> Hi,
>
> Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>>
>> I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
>> wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
>> at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
>> license change
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm :
> John,
>
> John Smith wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
>> employing such hard line tactics,
>
> I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
> with what is on the table now.
>
>> you are literally riski
On 19 July 2010 23:38, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
> with what is on the table now.
Which many people cannot legally agree to, even if we do agree with
the ODBL. It seems to be a mad dash to force people down this path,
and I'm s
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain
(I reply merely to inform rather than to prolong the debate, as sticking my
head into a grinder is already seeming like
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
That would indicate that PD lovin, SA hatin guys will try to "stuffin
committee" method to push OSM in "right direction"? :)
The Contributor Terms have been carefully crafted to make sure that
anyone who wants to push OSM in what they perceive is the "right
direc
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number
> of people than all of
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
> wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
> at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
> license
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm :
..
Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?
Does OSMF have clear plans to convince such data providers to
subscribe to plan
2010/7/19 Andy Allan :
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> Hi again!
>>
>> I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
>> wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
>> at least it would give contributors a promise th
On 20 July 2010 00:26, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
> to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
> providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?
You also have both the Australian and New Zealand (no doubt oth
On 19 July 2010 15:58, Stephen Hope wrote:
> On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
>> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
>> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors"
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number
> of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
> the minority ;)
I lo
On 7/19/10, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> [...]
> Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? So far I have
> only heard it from business people.
I do.
I used be in the SA camp, until I realized that SA is probably hurting
people who are doing creative stuff and would like to mix OSM dat
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
>> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
>> or two years, "two thirds of active contribu
2010/7/19 SteveC :
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
>>> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
>>> or two years, "tw
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> > On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM
> contributors
> >> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them fr
Come on that wasn't a flame - now any reasonable point is a flame?
Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my
phone)
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> 2010/7/19 SteveC :
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith
We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit
the OSMF has.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> > On 19 July 20
2010/7/19 SteveC :
> Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my
> phone)
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big data contributors
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit
the OSMF has.
Your mentioned vote didn't have /any/ statistical relevance, not even a
vote under the top contributors. But actually in The Netherlands we did :)
With again surpri
It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.
I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see
what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are u
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Graham Jones wrote:
> It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
> voted the right way.
>
> I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
> the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could
On 19 July 2010 22:06, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them decide
> what licenses are acceptable for us?
It's similar to the compiler warnings, sometimes you don't want to
change your code just because the compiler can't understand it and you
Frederik (and Steve, and LWG),
Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct
questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice.
Regarding the questions: taking NearMap as an example (copied from another
thread, see there for more details):
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0200, SteveC wrote:
wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
> > employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
> > right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
> > have been in vein exactly?
>
>
Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony:
IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
place.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Terms&diff=326&oldid=204
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:55:42PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
> as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
> would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
> agree with ODBL (as i
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:31:42PM +0100, Graham Jones wrote:
> It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
> voted the right way.
>
> I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
> the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Ulf Möller wrote:
> Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony:
>
>
> IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
>> place.
>>
>
>
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Terms&diff=326&oldid=204
Yeah, that's as
Am 19.07.2010 22:42, schrieb Michael Barabanov:
NearMap looks quite important for Australia.
The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on
a case by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy
with the ODbL but not with the Contributor Terms then may
Hi,
Michael Barabanov wrote:
Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct
questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice.
Well I have already said that I am against it, and I have given the
reasons. We have a large PD community in OSM - exactly how large
Ulf Möller wrote:
> The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on a
> case
>by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy with the ODbL
>but
>not with the Contributor Terms then maybe that should be done here.
So can these specific contributor terms
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:32:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there
> are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial
> imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's
> include their data without them
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Sorry, but as far as I remember CT "suddenly" appeared on the table.
> Before that there was just ODBL.
SteveC has already told me that either my memory was faulty or I wasn't paying
attention for stating exactly that.
Couldn't be bothered to look
On 20 July 2010 09:43, Simon Biber wrote:
> So can these specific contributor terms be available for anyone who wants to
> contribute in Australia? At a guess, perhaps 90% of active mappers in
> Australia
> have used NearMap as one of their sources and are therefore unable to agree
> to
> the
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
> From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
> and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
> else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on
> with the license.
quash all discus
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
licenses?
I'm not saying it is "bad", I'm just saying that nobody has ever made an
effort to find out what "spirit" most of th
On 20 July 2010 08:10, Simon Ward wrote:
> Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation
> who feels they can’t fit with our terms.
>
I'm not assuming that Simon was necessarily directing that at us, but I
think it's worth saying here that NearMap are specifically *not
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:20 AM, Liz wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
>> From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
>> and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
>> else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:26:57AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Simon Ward wrote:
> >Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
> >licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
> >licenses?
>
> I'm not saying it is "bad", I'm just saying tha
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, you wrote:
> Tell me Liz, have you contributed anything positive to this entire process,
> ever, in any way?
I have, whether or not you see it as positive.
I have pointed out that there are problems, and asked people to reconsider
what they are doing so that the problems can
Am 20.07.2010 03:10, schrieb Elizabeth Dodd:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, you wrote:
Tell me Liz, have you contributed anything positive to this entire process,
ever, in any way?
I have, whether or not you see it as positive.
I have pointed out that there are problems, and asked people to reconsider
On 20 Jul 2010, at 01:20, Liz wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
>> From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
>> and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
>> else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just mo
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
For my part, I don’t fully agree with the contributor terms, and I
suggest we start there because they are also what I’ve seen other people
voice their dissent about.
As I said, if you intend to further restrict possible future license
changes via the contributor terms t
On 20 July 2010 16:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot
> be viewed in isolation.
Why not?
It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked...
> I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:55:17AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members -
> among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process,
> including the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89%
> majority in December last year.
John,
John Smith wrote:
The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot
be viewed in isolation.
Why not?
It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked...
Please read and understand:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-July/0519
Frederik,
I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage
and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my
entire life. PD guys need to understand that this project might
*never* submit to PD. As much as I like PD as concept, it is unreal to
implement it in
That's really for the LWG to answer...
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> 2010/7/19 SteveC :
>
>> Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my
>> phone)
>
> Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
> as requirement f
On 20 July 2010 18:17, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT
> Section 3, even if it is no. But please without "PD crowd is mighty"
> crap
Hmmm so it seems that Fredrick thinks it's ok to loose people as long
as they aren't from the pro-P
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage
and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my
entire life.
Nobody said anything about holding anything hostage. There's lots of
parties to this agreement and everyone has t
John,
John Smith wrote:
Hmmm so it seems that Fredrick thinks it's ok to loose people as long
as they aren't from the pro-PD crowd...
The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process
while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid
respect. Telling p
>
> I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF
> are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts
> about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward concrete
> plans about how to implement CC-BY-SA in an internationally balanc
On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so
> far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely
> respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section
> 3 practically strips all this g
Hi,
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
What I don't like is that CT section 3 practically strips all this
good work away, with having vague definition of "new and open
license".
"Free and open". And personally, I think that's just about ok - OSM is
about creating a free map of the world, not a share-al
John,
John Smith wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional misdirection
I'm unwilling to continue the discussion on this level. Have a good time.
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/li
On 20 July 2010 18:50, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process
> while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid respect.
> Telling people that they are stupid and their ideas crap is not a good way
> to move forward.
I do
On 20 July 2010 19:07, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I don't share your sentiment that providing a license change path for the
> future actually throws away any good work. If the new license works well for
Then what do you call it when most of the data for Australia would be
incompatible, along with any
On 20 July 2010 19:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'm unwilling to continue the discussion on this level. Have a good time.
Sounds like par of the course, you refuse to even think about being
more flexible for current contributors, at least you aren't throwing
personal insults yet.
_
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:05 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so
>> far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely
>> respect huge work putted into it. What I don't
On 20.07.2010 11:12, John Smith wrote:
> On one hand you are avidly promoting things should be allowed to go to
> PD, on the other hand you keep saying CC-by-SA isn't good enough and
> frankly I can't see this logic, either you want PD and in which case
> CC-by-SA may be for all intents and purpose
On Tuesday 20 July 2010 09:10:29 John Smith wrote:
> I believe this is the point Steve keeps pointing out, there was no
> direct consequences at the time, and people were assuming there is
> still outs later if problems were discovered and up until that point
> the emphasis was strongly on the new
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF
> are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts
> about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward concrete
> plans about
Hi,
On 20 July 2010 01:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates. One
> is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your
> contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot extract
> PD data from an ODbL prote
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
(FWIW I pledge that if I can have a no-CT account (ODbL only), I will
register a second account to make a percentage of my edits in PD,
especially those modifying objects created by others)
Best idea I read so far :)
Stefan
On 20 July 2010 11:07, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If any
> any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best -
> why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them?
Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of data and want to
have a say in how that chunk is released?
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates.
> One is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your
> contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot
> extract PD data from an ODbL protected database without
Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources
such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as it
may move to PD.
I think we have already agreed on having to have exceptions for large
imports, i.e. there will be some data in OS
Am 20.07.2010 22:06, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
> On 20 July 2010 11:07, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> If any
>> any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best -
>> why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them?
>
> Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of
Am 19.07.2010 16:26, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
> Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
> to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
> providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?
Easy. Keep on mapping and be the bigger fish in a couple years.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Kai Krueger wrote:
>
>> However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources
>> such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as
>> it
>> may move to PD.
>>
>
> I think we have already agreed on
2010/7/21 Dirk-Lüder Kreie
> Well you'll get a say with or without the SA-Clause in the CT, provided
> you stay interested enough to keep actively mapping to be eligible to
> vote on future changes to another "free and open" license.
>
> I fail to see your problem. There will always be the safegu
2010/7/21 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> Am 20.07.2010 22:06, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
>> Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of data and want to
>> have a say in how that chunk is released? (For example as a
>> share-alike fan I want my own personal mapping to influence those who
>> derive
78 matches
Mail list logo