Steve Bennett wrote:
> Now, a) is a done deal. c) is scheduled, and will almost certainly
> take place. Therefore, the only people who can stop data destruction
> are the "decliners", who must share responsibility for allowing it to
> happen.
If you don't respect the people's decision to determin
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:45 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Perhaps you and others complaining loudly about people being selfish
> should blame those responsible, OSM-F, they chose to change licenses
> even though many pointed out how much would have to be tossed out, and
> even after all the tossing is
On 11 January 2012 09:03, Glen Cunningham wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 January 2012 23:20:50 Sam Couter wrote:
>
> >
> > Is it selfish of Google or Nearmap to not allow use of their data
> > under the ODbL and CTs?
>
> Surely, a better question is why did Google and Nearmap make that
> decision?
>
I
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 23:20:50 Sam Couter wrote:
>
> Is it selfish of Google or Nearmap to not allow use of their data
> under the ODbL and CTs?
Surely, a better question is why did Google and Nearmap make that
decision?
___
Talk-au mailing list
On 10/01/12 17:37, Steve Bennett wrote:
What's more important - the ideological dispute with OSMF, or
building an awesome map database?
The latter, of course.
Nevertheless, many hard-working long-term contributors NEED to have
their say about the state of affairs before they move on to regard
Steve Bennett wrote:
> That's the point. I'm not surprised, I'm not offended. I believe the
> disgruntled have made their point, and I definitely supported them
> while the debate was active. Now that it's over, and a done deal, I
> think it would be much better for them to now (begrudingly,
> rel
Sam Couter wrote:
> There's really no point in either side whinging
> because I don't think anything is going to change.
Absolutely. So let's get on with our respective projects, and stop squatting
on each others' mailing lists whingeing about the other project. Life is too
short.
Richard
--
V
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Sam Couter wrote:
> This is a false dichotomy. There is at least one more perspective: "you"
> (meaning OSMF and OSM contributors) suck it up and deal with the
> consequences of your actions. What's happening now was predicted way
> back, and I know "I told you so"
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Yep, there's no question whatsoever that "I" (meaning OSMF) have
> behaved like a complete dick. Now, do we continue this game of "well,
> you behaved like a dick, so I'm going to behave like a dick", or do we
> take the higher moral ground of "well, you behaved like a dick,
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Sam Couter wrote:
> The community has rejected the contributions. They were made, in
> good faith, under the licence that had been agreed to at the time.
Look, I don't think there's anyone on this list that particularly
likes the way the license change was handled
lol again... you've gotta love argument by analogy... :)
jim
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Sam Couter wrote:
> Really, you told him his car's not worth shit and you don't want it
> unless he also joins Family First. Even though yesterday you said you'd
> like it and he should get it for you
I agree. I ticked the box but it was blackmail by osm.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Sam Couter wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Refusing to accept the outcome (or rather, persisting vainly with the
> > idea that maybe it will change), and refusing to accept the CTs
> > amounts to blackmai
Steve Bennett wrote:
> This is the OSM community here. We're on an OSM mailing list. From the
> perspective of this community, John Smith's contributions are not
> usable. Certainly, he's made a valuable contribution to other
> communities elsewhere - but not this one. The complaint was that this
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
> That's a pretty lame example. It'd be more like if I dropped off said
> car, you decide the block off the lane way behind your house and then
> complain you can't use the car because I should supply a crane to move
> it after the road rules were
not big on socratic logic, but best OSM ROFL analogy so far this year... :)
jim
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Let's extend it further. John Smith shows up at my birthday party
> driving a new Mercedes which is his present to me. Then in
> conversation I let slip that I
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> He isn't taking anything away. Those contributions were may under the
> CC-BY-SA license. You are free to continue using them under the
> CC-BY-SA license.
>
> OSM wants more rights than that. JohnSmith doesn't agree, and is
> within his righ
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Let's recap:
> 1) You did lots of hard work creating content
> 2) You applied the maxspeed change
> 3) You refused to accept the contributor terms
>
> Now, 3) totally negates the benefit of 1). It's actually worse than if
> you had never cont
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I just love the admiration people give out for those that spent a lot
> of time and effort trying to make OSM the best map possible, only to
> throw away all the hard work and throw insults in the faces of people.
Let's recap:
1) You did lots of
18 matches
Mail list logo
