On 8 April 2011 15:57, Ian Sergeant <ina...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 April 2011 15:34, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Please list sources for this comment, because as far as I understand >> it there is no further appeals on the matter currently pending. > > http://www.smh.com.au/business/directories-fight-to-go-to-high-court-20110113-19pw2.html
Which was decided in February... http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/336231/court_upholds_right_copy_lucrative_databases/ > I'm not going to broaden this out into yet another discussion about > OSM and the licence change in this thread. > > However, saying or demonstrating that there is some tainted data in > OSM will never be an excuse to deliberately introduce more. Where it > is found it should be removed. You were the one bringing up this point, I don't believe I have introduced tainted data. > Just to tie this back to my original point - lets only include data > with the owner's informed consent or a known compatible licence. Once > everybody on the project becomes a lay lawyer and includes data that > they believe to be unencumbered, we'll end up with a right mess. Why confuse the issue, my point was simple, people haven't been allowed to make an informed decision regarding the license change, but have been pressured in various ways to accept the new CTs. It doesn't take a legal genius to work out that if you force people into a corner without giving them relevant information people will make mistakes, list Steve has already shown, and in turn breach the CTs because he didn't have the right to agree. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
