On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:14 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:44 PM, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> > wrote:
>> 1) Those who do not want to, or can not. agree to the CT's and make an >> decision not to accept the CT's. >> 2) Those previous mappers who are no longer active and so won't even have >> made a choice between accepting or not. >> >> In the case of group (1) it seems wrong to me to disregard their wishes >> and just leave the data in. > > It would be equally wrong to disregard the wishes of those in case 2. Being > uncontactable is not a justification for abusing a person's rights. > > OSM used to be very respectful of other people's copyright. It used to be > one of the values that was held very highly. But now it seems to think that > it can just trample all over the rights of the people who built it. > > I'm ashamed that OSM is no longer the body that it once was. It has lost my > respect. I neglected to address those who don't respond either way in my earlier reply but I'd expect to treat their contributions with the same care as the decliners. 80n have you presumed I had malice where I only failed to address a sub-question? Thanks. I don't see where David suggested anything that would deserve your ire, either. Even if you disagree with what either David or I said, you would paint the entire OSM project with your loss of respect and shame, rather than engaging in the discussion? I'm not sure I see what it is that you are reacting to in such a visceral way. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
