Caluya and sibay Islands
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:17 AM, maning sambale
emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote:
What are the common tags used for marine features? The map features
seems too land-centric (for good reasons) but I think for archipelagic
countries we need to map marine features as
I've changed the subject to avoid hijacking the original thread. As Manning
suggests, this is something we the Philippines OSM community can take a lead in.
So far, I've not come up with a very large subsea list. Over the weekend
I'll try and dig up a list of what GNS uses and how I have
Please translate and pass on to the country-specific lists...
Follow-up discussion best suited on
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk or the avenues
discussed in this announcement.
-
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
Eugene,
I vaguely remember during our meet-up in Grappas that you were
discussing something about the use of public domain data in the
Philippines. You mentioned that data in the public domain as defined
in the Philippines cannot be used for commercial purposes. Did I get
this right?
Please
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and
supporting the
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, andrzej zaborowski escribió:
What I don't understand very clearly (and would appreciate a
clarification) is the license says that ODbL applies to the database
and not to the data in it, and that data in one databse can be covered
by multiple licenses. What
I have been through the wiki pages that relate to the ODbL and updated
them where I can.
I have updated the name of the license to OdBL on all pages (I think).
I have updated the links to the license itself to point to
OpenDataCommons not OpenContentLawyer in all cases (I think).
I have
Hi
Actually, I think that's the beauty of the proposal. In England and Wales, a
designated= tag like the ones suggested
Will automatically define even multi-user ways as the law is quite clear on
this. Thus
Designated=public_footpath automatically means designated for pedestrians
only.
Norbert Hoffmann schrieb:
Mario Salvini wrote:
So
highway=path + bicycle=designated + motor_vehicle=yes
is nonsense. If anything, it could be highway=track ...
is not a so unworldly situation out there.
And even then this is not the bicycle-street you talk of. Those
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors are
putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true would be better
spent doing something more useful.
JOSM's preset puts it in as 'yes' (and that's what nearly everyone was
doing when I started). Who's to say what
David Earl wrote:
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
would be better spent doing something more useful.
Eek - people are really doing this?
'yes' is English (and, as you say, in the editor
True/false and Yes/No both give the same meaning to oneway, so there's
only debate if the value should be leaning towards human- or machine
readability. Personally I would lean towards human, shame on any
programmer who's software cannot parse yes/no values.
What would really add additional
David Earl wrote:
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
would be better spent doing something more useful.
Well, JOSM-search-type:way oneway:true
A nice way to rest my brain.
Who's to say what
True/false and Yes/No both give the same meaning to oneway, so there's
only debate if the value should be leaning towards human- or machine
readability. Personally I would lean towards human, shame on any
programmer who's software cannot parse yes/no values.
What would really add
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
David Earl wrote:
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
would be better spent doing something more useful.
Well, JOSM-search-type:way oneway:true
A nice way to rest my
Someone replied, asking:
Eek - people are really doing this?
You replied:
I am
I thought you were arguing for changing oneway=true to oneway=yes,
which is the opposite of what David describes.
Ed
Ooops, mis-read that, but still my point stands, I don't care about yes or
true,
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway
If I'm then in an editwar with Sylvain
We won't need that because I use yes/no too (mis-read the david email),
, I hope we can do it face to face
with some wine and cheese ;)
but let me know when you'll come to France, I'll keep a bottle and some
terrible stinking cheese so we can still do
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:36:18 +0100 (CET), Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl
wrote:
Whatever it is going to be: it would be nice if the validator plugin in
JOSM
will accept this. Currently it's programmed to accept yes/no as a proper
tag
and true/false is flagged as incorrect.
That's why I change
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:37:30AM +0100, Elena of Valhalla wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
Am Freitag 27 Februar 2009 schrieb sly (sylvain letuffe):
Who's to say what the right answer is when there
is no right answer.
I pretend to know and say (again) that the right answer is not to have
duplicate tags for the same meaning.
right!
as a software developer, I would prefer 0/1/-1,
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:19:53 -0500 (EST), si...@mungewell.org wrote:
Can anyone give me any tips on how to take a simple table of data with a
figure
for each coordinate, and turn it into a heat map? At first I thought of
GeoCommons but it seems you can only use pre-processed data with their
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
oneway-tag).
Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road ;-)
Don't want to be droven on an undefined or other or maybe oneway
Europe counts :
oneway
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:55:26 +0100, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have
a
oneway-tag).
Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road
;-)
Don't want to be
On Friday 27 February 2009 12:06, you wrote:
A good way would obviously be to change the map features and then the
mapnik and osmarender stylesheets. As much as we like it or not, the
rendered map is a big incensitive to tag one way (no pun intended) or
another.
Renaud.
Looks like Ed was
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
oneway-tag).
Ouch ! While using your software, I'll be extreamly carefull on the road ;-)
Don't want to be droven on an undefined or other or maybe oneway
Europe
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:15:11 +0100, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
On Friday 27 February 2009 12:06, you wrote:
A good way would obviously be to change the map features and then the
mapnik and osmarender stylesheets. As much as we like it or not, the
rendered map is a big
The opposite is true. undefined it is either a oneway=true or not.
True, we know nothing with undefined.
In both cases I am allowed to drive it like a oneway=true and it
is the safest thing to do
Safety is not engaged in considering a default to yes, but that's what you
could do on any roads
Hi!
Lambertus schrieb:
What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1.
These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of
the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag.
Actually, it would convey less information.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Grant Slater wrote:
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
The working group have put much effort in to
Hi!
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
Just a note:
As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
Salesman
navigation system (case ignored):
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
oneway-tag).
So you are
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
Just a note:
As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
Salesman
navigation system (case ignored):
no
false
0
-1
all other values are ignored and treated as
Sly:
Looks like Ed was faster than me doing it on the wiki. Also I
would have
prefered a bit of talking since some people seams to prefere
1/0 rather than
yes/no
I meant to change it when we discussed it last in the doctors/doctor
thread. At some point in the past before I started mapping
Dave Stubbs schrieb:
2009/2/26 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org wrote:
highway=path is a single track wheres highway=track is a dual track.
???
Look at the wiki definition of track:
On Thursday 26 February 2009 21:02:37 you wrote:
I had run it previously - I now recall that after the error in make, I
ran make again and did not get any error. So I thought it was ok. This
time also, running make the second time did not give any error. The
mod_tile is from the svn head.
thread. At some point in the past before I started mapping it had
been updated to yes/no/-1
The wiki's history might prove my guilt. But I wasn't aware of
polls(voting?)/discussion needed to make such changes.
When someone came to undo my changes, I realized I failed to follow
the process so
On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:09, Grant Slater wrote:
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the
new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
Thank you for your work to date;
lots of footways or cycleways are even wide enought to catch 2
4-wheeled-vehicles next to each other but they are both still
path+attributes per definition. The indication of being a path has
nothing to do with the way's width.
Hi Mario,
IMO we don't tag ways according to their widest point,
Hi!
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb:
Just a note:
As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling
Salesman
navigation system (case ignored):
no
false
0
The suggestions re the Use Case page all sound good. Looking at the wiki
history page, I assume but cannot absolutely guarentee that review has been
made of the version extant 19th Jan (there were then no edits for a month).
I've grabbed a copy of that page and will insert the review comments
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió:
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a
oneway-tag).
Reversible lanes on a separated carriageway...
--
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:36:23 +0100, Iván Sánchez Ortega
i...@sanchezortega.es wrote:
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com
escribió:
all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have
a
oneway-tag).
Reversible lanes on a separated
El Viernes, 27 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió:
That is not something a routing enging can work with anyway
as there is no rule as to when this is oneway=true and when this it
oneway=-1.
Agreed. It should be avoided unless you are starting (or re-calculating) the
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes:
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
I am sure that this is going to be fun. Legal
It looks like we finally got some kind of License plan for the step
towards the new license, so everyone check
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
Let me start with the obvious questions first:
* why don't you split between the votes whether you like
Hi,
I'll comment on various other aspects later but:
Ben Laenen wrote:
And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to it by
someone that didn't give approval, the only thing you can do is remove
the relation as it was derived from CC-BY-SA data. Goodbye to your
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I'll comment on various other aspects later but:
Ben Laenen wrote:
And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to
it by someone that didn't give approval, the only thing you can do
is remove the relation as it
1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to
find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did
the upload of their data just have to tick I agree on their behalf
when they next log-in after the change?
2: For imported datasets where we checked
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:55 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
li...@letuffe.org wrote:
Europe counts :
oneway | count
+
no;yes | 2
We have elves contributing?
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:05, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Grant Slater openstreet...@... writes:
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the
new
proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement
On the aerial photography for the Gaza Strip there are areas where
there are tank tracks over some farming areas. Personally I have not
been mapping these because I don't consider them as permanent
features. At least one mapper is including them, for example here (to
straight lines are
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:19, Ben Laenen wrote:
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I'll comment on various other aspects later but:
Ben Laenen wrote:
And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to
it by someone that didn't give approval, the only
To be clear, personal views, not the licensing work group...
Ben Laenen wrote:
It looks like we finally got some kind of License plan for the step
towards the new license, so everyone check
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
Read the full
On Friday 27 February 2009, Peter Miller wrote:
Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own
:)
I think this discussion is important enough to take place on the talk
mailing list. If it's held on the
Nop wrote:
On the other hand, the way I understood it OSM was a global
initative and is happy for every additional mapper. If this is the
goal, we need structures that you can understand and properly use
without a degree in computer science.
A good general principle: we should always
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
At what point do we then intend to include those people who are not
interested in legal?
Is it safe to assume that anyone who
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:40:44 -0800 (PST), Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
If we produce a wonderful world map but developers have to jump through a
few hoops to use it, a) we have a wonderful world map, therefore b)
people
will - and are doing - produce the tools that jump through
Ben Laenen wrote:
There's exactly one way to be sure this won't happen: get
approval of *all* the people who've been editing OSM. And with
a number of around 100.000 mappers I'm very skeptical that
you'll be able to manage that.
Not true (IMO at least).
We have 100,000
On Friday 27 February 2009, Grant Slater wrote:
Read the full announcement in all its glory:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001
958.html
Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement.
I keep disagreeing. This is important enough to be
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping.
Yes Richard, but some things are best done in the editors. It's much
easier for editors to highlight obvious mistakes, than it is for every
marcus.wolschon wrote:
Actually it's the other way around.
We have tens of thousands of mappers
but are lacking developers on every corner.
Nah. We don't have enough developers on the OSM core site, but that's
immaterial in this context. The ecosystem, however, is thriving. There isn't
a day
Nic Roets wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping.
Yes Richard, but some things are best done in the editors. It's
much easier for editors to highlight obvious mistakes, than
Chris Hill wrote:
Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just
discuss among a cosy few. When I tried to join legal (out of
interest) I could not.
It's not a closed list - it's open to anyone and you can, of course, read on
the web or via Nabble. If you try to join
On 27 Feb 2009, at 14:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-
talk? Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of
our own :)
At what point do we then intend to include those people who are not
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:08, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
Why do the non-lawyers need to go to the lawyers if they're making
proposals
Peter Miller escribió:
On the aerial photography for the Gaza Strip there are areas where
there are tank tracks over some farming areas. Personally I have not
been mapping these because I don't consider them as permanent
features. At least one mapper is including them, for example here
On 27 Feb 2009, at 15:05, Chris Hill wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-
talk? Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of
our own :)
Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just
discuss
2009/2/27 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
Ben Laenen wrote:
There's exactly one way to be sure this won't happen: get
approval of *all* the people who've been editing OSM. And with
a number of around 100.000 mappers I'm very skeptical that
you'll be able to manage that.
Not true
Peter Miller wrote:
Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just discuss
among a cosy few. When I tried to join legal (out of
Just out of curiosity: If the CC-by-SA license give the copyright to all
contributors, then who is to decide what stays in the database and what
is removed. Also who has the right to require a change to a new license?
Is it the person who owns the server? Is it OSMF? Steve Coast as founder
On Friday 27 February 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote:
And even if you take the ultra cautious approach and say all edits
are deserving of copyright protection, you can still draw a line
around minor edits both temporal and spatial ie: a single edit can
only possibly infect edits made after it, and
If someone has put one church on the map, or removed an 'n' from 'Avennue',
or even just done the uncreative monkey-work of tracing over Yahoo imagery,
I take exception to this. I have spent many a long winter night (over two
winters!) adding almost all the lakes and rivers of Peru to OSM (for
David Lynch wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:08, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
Why do the non-lawyers need to go to the
Please translate and pass on to the country-specific lists...
Follow-up discussion best suited on
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk or the avenues
discussed in this announcement.
-
The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the
Even in the UK, which follows the sweat of the brow principle (i.e. copyright
can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs to
be significant.
Sorry I meant to add at the end of my previous email - what I was saying is
that tracing of satellite
imagery can be
Hi,
Lambertus wrote:
Just out of curiosity: If the CC-by-SA license give the copyright to all
contributors, then who is to decide what stays in the database and what
is removed.
Ultimately this will be the person operating the database (server). You
can of course always operate your own
On Friday 27 February 2009 15:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :)
Peter, you'r not alone, I'm with you !
At what point do we then
2009/2/27 Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com:
On Friday 27 February 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote:
And even if you take the ultra cautious approach and say all edits
are deserving of copyright protection, you can still draw a line
around minor edits both temporal and spatial ie: a single edit can
only
Hi!
sly (sylvain letuffe) schrieb:
The license change is no longer a boring legal affair,
It has, and always will be, in the eyes of the majority.
The best that can be done IMHO is to warn the maximum possible users, but
don't force anyone to follow the discussion he is not interesting
Hi!
Grant Slater schrieb:
Read the full announcement in all its glory:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001958.html
Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement.
I disagree. This matter is important enough that it should be
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:40, OJ W wrote:
1: Are we going to contact the suppliers of large donated datasets to
find their opinions on the new license? Or will the person who did
the upload of their data just have to tick I agree on their behalf
when they next log-in after the change?
2: For
The legal council response to Use Case 1 says (in part) 'The ODbL
imposes no license restrictions on the Produced Works, although it
does restrict reverse engineering the Produced Work in order to re-
create the Database and place it under a different license.'
This says clearly that
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Lambertus wrote:
If we change to the new license then do we have a tool available
that will remind me of the bits that are going to be rolled back
because of my contribution being dependent on someone who did not
agree to the license? I
Hi,
Ben Laenen wrote:
I care about whether the database will still
be clean after a possible change (meaning, properly licensed).
The current license is anything but properly licensed.
If you take a *strict* view then we're all violating CC-BY-SA every day
by not listing every individual
Celso González ce...@mitago.net writes:
I dont understand the -1 or reserved value, what that means?
one way yes/true/1 but in the opposite direction of the way?
Exactly.
Matthias
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Ben Laenen wrote:
I care about whether the database will still
be clean after a possible change (meaning, properly licensed).
The current license is anything but properly licensed.
At least it's under one license, and no-one questions
On 27/02/2009 16:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If we change to the new license then do we have a tool available that
will remind me of the bits that are going to be rolled back because of
my contribution being dependent on someone who did not agree to the
license? I would like to know which bits
Celso González ce...@mitago.net writes:
I dont understand the -1 or reserved value, what that means?
one way yes/true/1 but in the opposite direction of the way?
Matthias confirmed:
Exactly.
-yes anyone?
Perhaps this should be oneway=forward/no/backward (where forward and backward
are
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
-yes anyone?
please no, it's even less intuitive than -1
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
homepage: http://www.trueelena.org
email: elena.valha...@gmail.com
___
talk mailing list
Donald Allwright wrote:
Even in the UK, which follows the sweat of the brow principle (i.e.
copyright
can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs
to
be significant.
Sorry I meant to add at the end of my previous email - what I was saying
is that
tracing of
Ben Laenen wrote:
As long as there's no answer to it [...]
I wouldn't even accept [...]
I would refuse [...]
I want a very detailed answer [...]
that's really not my concern [...]
Hey, this is a collaborative project. No-one is being paid for this.
You could, you know, even _help_.
cheers
Hi,
Ben Laenen wrote:
Ugh, and here I thought people in the FOSS world actually cared about
proper use of licenses.
Well if it were my call...
Here's one: why not proposing to put it all under a proprietary license,
and also relicense the works of those that you can't get an answer
OSM2Go now automagically flips oneway tags, tags on ways like foo:left
and foo:right, and forward and backward members in relations when the
user reverses a way. Better explain what we do for oneway somewhere,
this might as well be it.
We inherit JOSM's presets system, so we use whatever
UI-wise
On Friday 27 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Ben Laenen wrote:
As long as there's no answer to it [...]
I wouldn't even accept [...]
I would refuse [...]
I want a very detailed answer [...]
that's really not my concern [...]
Hey, this is a collaborative project. No-one is
Given that the purpose of this license is to allow use, copying,
modifying, and redistribution, why is it phrased as only allowing you
to Use the database, and then redefining Use in a different section to
mean copying, modifying, and redistribution?
Shouldn't the first paragraph of S3.1 be
Add this question/point to the wiki!
- Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible share-alike
licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works
derived from more than one already existing free work.
While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or
BSD-like license, I would have at least
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
It's sad to see OSM add to the pile of incompatible share-alike
licenses, making it more and more impossible to create free works
derived from more than one already existing free work.
While I have to accept, that you do not want to go with a more PD or
BSD-like
This will be a particular problem if this happened with someone who made
lots of changes and then went off in a huff for some reason.
What about data donated by varous organizations? In these cases, the
user that uploaded them usually just merely converted the data from
another format
Hi,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
What license would our data be under? Would it
be under no license because it's factual data that cannot be
copyrighted?
Grant wrote:
OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the Factual Information
License
1 - 100 di 326 matches
Mail list logo
