<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 10/01/2012 13:43, Peter Miller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMdtf+g2e-qTNRiUAvUbf5V58WhgiLSM4u5DEFmBSmAA_oHK2g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 10 January 2012 12:07, David Earl <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:david@frankieandshadow.com">david@frankieandshadow.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this<br>
features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the<br>
surrounding features?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Exactly the question I raised on talk on Monday. I don't think you even
need to have moved anything, merely to have checked against a valid
source other than the non-accepting contributor (e.g. Bing for
location, local knowledge or OSSV etc for names) in order to claim the
IPR. I really don't see what mechanically then reproducing what is
already there actually adds to the process other than wasted time.<span
class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></blockquote>
<div><br>
Thank you. This is a matter of judgement by the Licensing Working Group
and they should come back with a clear view on it.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Our formal minuted doctrine, Item 7
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1pPOFHo_o5inG9Ereh3Zn5ItmctZGRFbcmnKwtbyNkdM">https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1pPOFHo_o5inG9Ereh3Zn5ItmctZGRFbcmnKwtbyNkdM</a>
, is that <span>it is for the community to pass judgement on whether
the criteria are acceptable rather than LWG and that criteria are
recorded on </span><span class="c18"></span><a class="c9"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F</a>
so that it is publicly transparent and in one centralised resource. We
monitor and will scream if we think the there is any veering away from
good faith and reasonable effort to check either that the IPR of
non-continuing mappers has been completely removed or that it has been
completely duplicated by continuing mappers.<br>
<br>
Anything like this also needs to be practical enough for a quantitative
rule to be easily coded into visualisation tools and into final rebuild
scripts by our technical volunteers.<br>
<br>
+1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean . Your userid is recorded with
the tag addition. <br>
<br>
Note also that some anonymous contributors did actually provide email
addresses, got our bulk emailings and have said yes to the new terms.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
</body>
</html>