On 13/07/10 11:47, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Tobias Knerr wrote:
And exactly that is the problem. Mappers didn't have a say in
starting the license change process
Yes, they did. After about four years of licence discussion among mappers,
OSMF held a vote last autumn in which 89% of respondees approved the
process
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.h
tml).
Only members of OSMF had a vote.
Yes but people had plenty of notice that this was coming up.
In addition, OSMF holds annual elections where anyone can stand and put
forward their views, and if elected, work to have them implemented -
exactly the same way that your country's democracy works.
We realise that.
Of course, not everyone is a member of OSMF, but if you don't choose to get
involved in the running of the project then you can't really complain if
decisions are taken that aren't to your liking.
A common statement by those "on the inside".
Membership of OSMF costs money. I have enough money for that sort of expense
but not everyone does.
True it does cost money; but it's not a massive amount.
As far as I'm concerned this should be straightforward; CC-BY-SA doesn't
work from any perspective, it doesn't provide the protections that I
would expect as a mapper and the uncertainty stops people from using the
data. Lets relicense our data and put the effort of discussing what if
scenarios into getting in touch with those who have not responded.
Cheers
Chris
--
e: [email protected]
w: www.chrisfleming.org
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
