On 10 August 2010 19:47, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
Since I've heard nothing more about this I can only assume that any
consideration for a compromise has been rejected by the pro-PD crowd.
Why do you even assume this?
Grant pasted this from LWG minutes on IRC earlier
On 10 August 2010 11:26, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Grant pasted this from LWG minutes on IRC earlier today:
It wasn't well received. It would be overly restrictive for the
project. Who knows what we'll be doing in 10 years time?
Misquoted.
That is not for the LWG minutes.
Since I've heard nothing more about this I can only assume that any
consideration for a compromise has been rejected by the pro-PD crowd.
On 30 July 2010 15:54, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 July 2010 15:40, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
I was going to just
On 31 July 2010 10:36, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
Then it doesn't help at all - what if ODbL 1.1 says that you can freely
relicense to CC-Zero? And if you think that can't happen, go look at the GNU
Free Documentation Licence 1.3 and Wikipedia. That kind of legal hijinks
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
If You have indicated to OSMF that you waive any rights in Your
Contents (dedication to the 'public domain'), OSMF will additionally
use or sub-license Your Contents under: the Public Domain Dedication
License; or
On 30 July 2010 16:16, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
If You have indicated to OSMF that you waive any rights in Your
Contents (dedication to the 'public domain'), OSMF will additionally
use or
On 30 July 2010 07:19, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
That's going to be a very messy area to deal with, because it requires
people sourcing or attributing perfectly all the time.
On a different topic of sourcing, as I mentionned some time ago, Spot
Images will be releasing
On 30 July 2010 19:40, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
On a different topic of sourcing, as I mentionned some time ago, Spot Images
will be releasing images of France in the near future for a period of 6
months. The attribution is very important to them and that's why someone is
On 30 July 2010 11:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Not entirely what I meant, if you checked the other thread on how to
add source=* tags it's actually complicated when you update data, but
only update a small section so on and so forth.
Yup, hence the reason I mentioned it
On 30 July 2010 20:24, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
Yup, hence the reason I mentioned it was about a different topic of
sourcing, and I couldn't find the previous thread.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2010-July/006868.html
On 30/07/2010, at 3:54 PM, John Smith wrote:
I've cc'd Grant on this email, he posted to the #osm-au IRC channel
about some proposed changes to the CTs, which I was hoping would have
come up in another thread by now:
LWG is considering:
3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:12 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 29 July 2010 13:57, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
What should I do? Can I unagree to the CTs?
I doubt you can unagree, although you won't get an answer even if
you asked, the whole process is very
On 29 July 2010 17:58, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If a new user, who has agreed to the contributor terms, makes a contribution
that this derived from work that is *only* licensed under CC-BY-SA do they
have the right to allow that contribution to be licensed under ODbL. I
don't think they
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com
To: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Sun
On 29 July 2010 23:34, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
1) YOU have to ask Nearmap if they are OK with YOU using their imagery under
the terms of the CT
Which they aren't so...
2) you cant use Nearmap imagery for tracing, and you should ask for all your
edits where you have used
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:42 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Which they aren't so...
I was going to just create a new account, and not agree to the CTs,
only to discover you cannot create an account without accepting. That
means that no new members can contribute by deriving
On 30 July 2010 15:40, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
I was going to just create a new account, and not agree to the CTs,
only to discover you cannot create an account without accepting. That
means that no new members can contribute by deriving information from
Nearmap
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
On 23 July 2010 00:08, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog
*snip*
Grant
What's the lower limit for inclusion on this list? It says rather
vaguely
more than
On 21 July 2010 05:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure how complete it is, but there is a list of data sets and
the licenses:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog
If there are any known entries missing, please add them.
LWG has put out a request for
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:50 PM, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On 21 July 2010 05:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure how complete it is, but there is a list of data sets and
the licenses:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog
If there are any
On 23 July 2010 00:08, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog
*snip*
Grant
What's the lower limit for inclusion on this list? It says rather vaguely
more than a few hundred nodes.
80n
Those that imported the data, they make the decision. We have
If only public domain was accepted then all of the government's CC
imports would not be possible.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Christoph Donges cdon...@gmail.com wrote:
Things would have been so much simpler if they had gone with pd from the
start.
Personally I consider all my edits (not
On 21 July 2010 14:27, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
If only public domain was accepted then all of the government's CC
imports would not be possible.
I'm not sure how complete it is, but there is a list of data sets and
the licenses:
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new
Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going
bye bye, all the
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
data from Nearmap.
___
Talk-au mailing list
On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
data from Nearmap.
On 18 July 2010 22:10, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users that
-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new
Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 18 July 2010 12:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
than a share alike
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
I used a PD data sets for creating the OSM coastline of Africa. It
took me 3 months in 2006. I imagine if for example the much quoted
CC-BY coastline of Australia was removed tomorrow it could be rebuilt
within a week from new data with community
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 1:18 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
As people should now be aware there is currently there is an issue,
not so much with ODBL, but the new Terms and Conditions people have to
agree to stating that OSM can change to other free licenses in
future without
On 11 July 2010 09:50, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I presume that you refer to paragraph three of the contributor terms
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a
database and only under the terms of
As people should now be aware there is currently there is an issue,
not so much with ODBL, but the new Terms and Conditions people have to
agree to stating that OSM can change to other free licenses in
future without requiring consent, while in theory this is a great idea
since if there is a
On 10/07/2010, at 9:18 AM, John Smith wrote:
however due to
the absence of requiring such a free license to be cc-by compatible
(require some form of attribution) this then means any cc-by data
would now have to be expunged from the system.
Only if the copyright holder hasn't agreed to the
On 10 July 2010 10:15, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
If you have imported data you got from someone else (other than public
domain), you can't legally agree to the CTs. Since I've imported some data
into OSM under my main account, I can't strictly click I Agree on that
35 matches
Mail list logo
