On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate > aren't ever going to be reconciled. > > It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at any of > the analysis done recently, Australia simply hasn't taken to ODbL+CT in the > way that other countries have. To take the count from odbl.de of "nodes last > edited by users who have accepted" (which gives a rough summary of recent > activity): > > Germany 90.1% > Great Britain 89.1% > France 96.8% > North America 96.4% > Russia 97.2% > Australia 48.4% > > That's pretty stark.
I think you are spot on here. If a country has >90% relicensable, and >50% support I can see why you would want to push ahead. On the same token if we in Australia have <50% relicensable and <50% support I can see why we locally wouldn't want to push ahead, that is regardless of whatever my thoughts of the actual licenses changes. In this case, I think it would benefit both parties to fork, ie. Australia keep with CC-BY-SA without CTs, and the other countries with high support to push ahead with the proposed changes. We were given plenty of warning this was coming, plenty of time to prepare both technically and non-technically to fork off. Us wanting to fork were given all the software to make it happen (as its free/open), and data in an open format to technically fork. The other missing pieces of the puzzle, was we weren't given any of the hardware/hosting resources to fork implement a fork or leadership to make it happen, which has lead to a scramble to find these. I think 80n has done a good job with these two though. > So, I think, we need to get away from this idea that a fork is a bad thing. > It isn't. There are two divergent communities, and it doesn't do either side > any good to try and hold them together when they're so opposed. > > FOSM appears to be slowly becoming established, both technically and as a > brand, and that's good. Benefiting from all the OSM code and ecosystem, plus > the free gov.au data, is a pretty good headstart for a "new" forked project > and I'd be amazed if it couldn't succeed given that. > > So please, let's stop hitting each other over the head with this. OSM can > exist with ODbL, FOSM can exist with CC-BY-SA; people will choose which one > to contribute to (or, indeed, both). OSM people can leave FOSM people alone > without badgering them to agree; FOSM people can leave OSM people alone > without criticism of the path they've chosen. > OSM people needn't invade the > FOSM mailing lists and vice versa. Let's concentrate on making a success of > our own project, not on doing the other one down. I think it would be in both our interest to be on each others mailing lists. I think we should share the same tagging, same wiki, same editors, etc. We are all part of the same community, we just push to different branches of the data. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
