Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines ornon-responses
- Original Message - From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines ornon-responses On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:59 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: In the implementation plan under phase 4 it asks Final cut-off. Community Question... What do we do with the people who have Declined or not responded? [1] In order to speed up the final phases of the implementation plan, and in particular the move from PHASE 4 to DONE, would it be best to ask the above question now, rather than waiting till we get to phase 4 , and then initiating the community discussion? Alternatively, if this question has already been asked and decided, and I've missed it, could the wiki be edited so we know what will happen. Alternatively, if the response at the moment is we don't know what we will do until we know how many people decline or don't respond, so we cant ask the community at the moment, could we at least know what the options are likely to be? David [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_4_-_CC-BY-SA_edits_no_longer_accepted._.28Phase_3_.2B_8_weeks_subject_to_critical_mass.29 Part of this question is being discussed here [2] more as what to do with the data rather than the people. As an open question I'm surprised to see so little discussion on this thread so far. It may be that we're just waiting to see what the visualization tools look / work like. Still the question, what exactly to do in various situations is interesting. How does one decliner-changeset in the middle of a chain of accepter-changestes effect the future data if the decliner made one position change, and subsequent editors made further position changes? From a purely what to do with the people point of view, I'd say the people are driving that bus. They'll decide to continue, or to increase or reduce their participation. Mappers do that every day. The project has nothing to say about it. Though after the license upgrade, the decision to continue would be under the community-agreed license and terms. I suppose what I'm concerned about is if people don't agree the CT's but their data is still kept in the database because it is assumed its OK to keep it in. One problem is that there will be at least two categories of people who don't accept the agree box on the CT's 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. I'd expect decline accounts to be kept for historical reasons though they would have to be deactivated from an editing perspective. What do you think, David? My initial assumption reaction was that if a contributor has not agreed the new CT's then his edits would be removed and any later edits which depended on his edits would be removed. What I'm not sure about is where in [2] it says * Where attributes have changed: * If the specific tag deleted or changed existed in a prior version, roll back that tag to the latest prior version (which could mean re-adding deleted tags) and then roll forward subsequent edits to that tag. Other tags should be unaffected. Then does that achieve it? Say users A C accept the CT's, user B does not If user A adds a road and tags it highway=road user B tags does a proper survey and tags the road as highway = secondry user C notes the spelling error and changes the tag to highway = secondary If B's edits are rolled back, then C's edits applied, does not the data really contain the effect of B's survey? David [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines ornon-responses
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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines ornon-responses
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: 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. Richard, I'm pleased to hear that you are prepared to respect the wishes of those who do not want to re-license their work. The best way to do this would be to create an ODbL licensed fork and leave us in peace. But, since some people have chosen the harder path of trying to change the license in-situ, I'm sure you'll join me in calling for a vote of all contributors. The gun-to-the-head, we'll delete your data if you don't agree approach is not something that garners any respect from me. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
