On Tuesday 23 February 2016, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> - review of the existing OSM community guidelines related to the ODbL
> - ODbL review with an eye to a 1.1 release (gather points for
> clarification and similar)
> - review CC-BY 4.0 compatibility as an input licence to the ODbL
> licensed
Am 22.02.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Mike N:
> On 2/22/2016 4:38 AM, Simone Cortesi wrote:
>> Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I
>> wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap
>> US but some company whose name starts with Map*
>
> Speaking as
There is, naturally, a longish story before this, not really necessary,
drama.
In August last year Kate hat contact with a law school about potential
input from a seminar or similar format on topics in the context of
licensing. While there was a fair amount of discussion and some
suggestions with
On 2/22/2016 4:38 AM, Simone Cortesi wrote:
Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I
wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap
US but some company whose name starts with Map*
Speaking as an OSM US participant and not affiliated with any
Hi,
Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I
wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap
US but some company whose name starts with Map*
This should be disclosed.
The Foundation doesn't need a new licence for our data.
1+ for Mr. Henk.
On
2016-02-21 22:23 GMT+01:00 Henk Hoff :
> It is interesting to read that not the OSMF, but OSM-US is the client for
> this license exercise. To me, the license is the prerogative of the
> Foundation, not a local chapter (either official or presumed to be).
>
>
>
> This
6 matches
Mail list logo