that makes a lot more sense, thanks for clarifying and apologies if I
over-reacted.
On 13 Jun 2011, at 16:52, SteveC wrote:
> I think the original email makes more sense as a discussion point if instead
> of being about "deleting data" it's more about "getting started early" on the
> problem o
I think the original email makes more sense as a discussion point if instead of
being about "deleting data" it's more about "getting started early" on the
problem of re-surveying data which might be removed.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jun 12, 2011, at 18:16, Adam Hoyle wrote:
> Wow, what an inc
Wow, what an incendiary email, I presume that was intentional and so as an
outsider I feel compelled to respond with these 3 thoughts:
1) Unnecessary destruction of data seems particularly short sighted (maybe it
is necessary, I'm not equipped to judge to be honest).
2) The points that are in t
I don't normally get involved in licencing stuff, but I disagree with
unnecessary data destruction.
While I have accepted the CTs, and to be honest don't care one way or the other
about ODBL, CC, etc I would urge most strongly that this is *not* done. Tim
is a decent guy and has contribute
Andrew writes:
>TimSC
>is now demanding changes to the way OSM is run with the treat of not accepting
>the CTs. (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.legal/6102) I
>believe that, whatever the merits what he wants are, his methods are
>unacceptable and the community should rej
5 matches
Mail list logo
