Or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Fake SteveC, depending on your
particular affiliation.
There was a rumour, though only a rumour ;-)
Cheers
Andy
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-accepting-the-new-contributo
r-terms-tp6483857p6503476.html
On 20 June 2011 16:44, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 6/19/2011 1:16 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I still take the view that *as the CTs are written* clause 2 would
apply to all contributions, which makes me uncomfortable signing them.
However, since the CTs represent a
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF
board members, so you then can make an official statement
about Michael's post.
I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something
faintly amusing about the appeals to an
I think it'll probably require divine revelation
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 22 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF
board members, so you then can make an official statement
about Michael's post.
I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but
Robert Whittaker wrote:
That's my position and you can take it or leave it. I really don't
see how flaming me in this list is helpful to the community.
Blimey. It was meant as a good-natured jokey e-mail, a gentle dig at best.
But if it helps, the Archbishop of Canterbury's house in Charlbury
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF
board members, so you then can make an official statement
about Michael's post.
I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something
faintly amusing about
On 6/19/2011 1:16 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I still take the view that *as the CTs are written* clause 2 would
apply to all contributions, which makes me uncomfortable signing them.
However, since the CTs represent a contract between myself and OSMF,
if it can be confirmed (eg by a
Steve Coast steve@... writes:
I can't make a statement for the OSMF without going to the board, but
that's my understanding, Mike is correct.
Would this not resolve the Nearmap question? As I understand it they did not
want to write a blank cheque allowing use under an unspecified licence.
On 18 June 2011 15:01, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
In other words, for the LWG, if data is compatible with *current* license
terms, then there is no problem contributing it and accepting the
contributor terms.
Many thanks for this. If that's how the Contributor Terms are to be
On 17 June 2011 18:04, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Andy Allan also provided a good argued answer to a similar question
to yours on http://help.openstreetmap.org [2] in case you haven't
seen it.
I hadn't seen it, so thanks. But there's also a response below it
explaining why Ed's reasoning
On 17/06/2011 14:50, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would
summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some
contributions derived from OS
Michael Collinson mike@... writes:
In other words, for the LWG, if data is compatible with *current*
license terms, then there is no problem contributing it and accepting
the contributor terms.
This is a nice explanation. Could it be added as a clarifying paragraph to
the contributor terms
On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would
summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some
contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new
terms without
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 13:50 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
If I've understood things correctly, the CTs (in particular Clause 2)
go further than ODbL compatibility, and require you to have additional
rights to grant to OSMF on your contributions. My reading of clause 2
is that it
If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is
relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In
practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than
that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the
OS license, if not the
On 17 June 2011 14:11, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Well, since the contributor terms are an agreement made as a
contributor, one is not necessarily making any statement about the
compatibility of OS open data
I'm sorry, but if you've used OS OpenData in previous contributions,
On 17 June 2011 14:19, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is
relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In
practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than
that, and which
Robert wrote:
My reading of clause 2
is that it requires your contributions to be able to be
distributed
under any free and open license. Some have disputed this view,
claiming that the intent of the CTs is only that you must warrant
that
your data is compatible with the current licenses.
You keep mentioning the OSMF when I think you really mean the LWG.
On 6/17/2011 9:44 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
On 17 June 2011 14:19, Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is
relicensable to anything that's free
Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I
would summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have
some contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the
new terms without qualms. I explain my reasons below and what I intend
to do. I
Michael
Thank you for such a full explanation
- Original Message -
From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
To: talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:50 PM
Subject: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
[snipped]
regretfully
22 matches
Mail list logo
