On 07/15/2010 11:39 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 16 July 2010 08:32, Rob Myers<[email protected]> wrote:
If we are allowed to arbitrarily redefine how votes should be counted then,
as I say, only 6.05% of the total possible electorate voted against
relicencing.
48% for, 6% against, no clear majority...
The largest single voting category is clearly the "for" vote.
And within the cast votes the result is even clearer.
The informal poll indicates that for the most part they are not.
This is like Fox taking a poll about how people voted and then
declaring a winner rather than actually waiting for votes to be
counted, it's meaningless for the most part and further more the poll
used doesn't link to actual accounts so there is nothing stopping
people from gaming the system.
There isn't, but the OSM community aren't 4chan.
I am not opposed to giving the contributors a vote. They can vote with their
data. That is the only practical and effective way for the community to
That isn't a vote, and it's confusing 2 issues in one,
agreeing/disagreeing with a license and voting for/against a change
over if the amount of data lost is unacceptable.
People will not vote to change over if they disagree with the change-over.
express their will, and the OSMF vote that we are discussing enabled it to
take place.
Giving the community a ballot vote would first be voted on by the OSMF. Then
even if the community did vote to relicence, ****the voluntary relicencing
system would still have to be used because OSMF cannot relicence the project
as a whole like Wikimedia did****.
I'm aware of that, that isn't my point, my point is I want to make an
informed decision on how much data will be lost if we relicense, so
far no one anywhere can know this.
Can you suggest a way we can estimate this?
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that
it has actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence
because they are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will
be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't know if 50% of the data for Australia would be lost, which
would not be in my interest, so why would agree to the change over and
be steam rolled by people in other parts of the world only caring
about what's best in their interest?
BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying
to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of
Australians.
This means that the project might still not reach "critical mass" if people
didn't choose to relicence. The outcome of the ballot(s) would be rendered
void. Everyone's time would be wasted and the will of the community would be
less clear than ever before.
This is exactly the point, unless we split the license change
agreement up and have a separate community vote on the change over
once it's know the state of relicensing a lot of us are nervous about
agreeing to relicense.
Someone voting for something is no guarantee that they will do it.
All there is to fear is fear of fear. ;-)
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
