Andrzej,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about?
Let's put it this way:
If 300 mappers are enough to put in a veto against the CT or the license
change then we can stop right now, because I am pretty sure that
*whatever* you do (even if you propose "we stay with the current
license, do you agree yes/no"), you can manage to find 300 people opposed.
Also, as I just wrote in another mail, in the case of NearMap the number
seems to be more like 120.
If ways can be found to accommodate everyone then those ways are
certainly preferable, and I am (as Anthony has pointed out) on record
for saying that the community is more important than the data. There are
probably not many ways to better alienate someone than by saying "sorry
we have to remove your data". So if it can be avoided then it should be
avoided.
But in the grand scheme of things, not changing the license (I *knew*
this would become a license discussion ;) is, in my opinion, likely to
alienate many more people (or keep them away in the first place), so we
are willing to pay a price for being able to proceed with the license
change.
And personally I don't think that losing 5% of mappers (I'm thinking: A
mapping party with 19 people attending instead of 20) would be too high
a price to pay, provided that they're evenly distributed. I wouldn't
want to lose 5% of world-wide mappers and lose them all in Australia
(leaving nothing), or lose 5% of world-wide mappers but only the most
prolific 5%, etc.
Hopefully people who will make the switch decision have a different
opinion.
Those who will make the switch decision so far have refrained from
saying numbers, and that's a sensible decision I think.
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
