<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html><head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head>Apologies, I managed to attribute someone else's comment to you, thereby misrepresenting your view.<br/><br/>Good to see some support for the import of data.<br/><br/>Kevin<br/><p>Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device</p><hr/><div><b>From: </b> Michael Barabanov <michael.barabanov@gmail.com>
</div><div><b>Date: </b>Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:27:45 -0700</div><div><b>To: </b><kevin@cordina.org.uk>; Licensing and other legal discussions.<legal-talk@openstreetmap.org></div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license</div><div><br/></div>_my_ first and second paragraphs? there was only one from me.<br><br>Maybe what I wrote was too concise. My point is that currently one needs to import; otherwise it's not routable. Combining at rendering time doesn't cut it.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:08 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kevin@cordina.org.uk">kevin@cordina.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
So a road-network in OSM based on OS information would have value as it would enable OSM's use as a map source for a routing product.<br>
<br>
Your first and second paragraphs are therefore inconsistent, unless you don't think a routeable map from OSM would be a good thing.<br>
<br>
As with any community we all have differing views. What is important in my eyes is that (a) the LWG and OSMF take the overall community's view into account and the members disregard any personal view, and (b) that there is a very clear (and legally sound) description of the effect of the new licence when the time comes to vote so we can make an informed decision which way to vote based on the effect it will have.<br>
<br>
Kevin<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Michael Barabanov <<a href="mailto:michael.barabanov@gmail.com">michael.barabanov@gmail.com</a>><br>
Sender: <a href="mailto:legal-talk-bounces@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk-bounces@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
</div><div class="im">Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:18:56<br>
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.<<a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."<br>
<<a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
legal-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
legal-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</html>