[OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
- Original Message - From: Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com To: David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:09 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] License graph On 19 Apr 2011, at 01:15, David Murn wrote: On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:53 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: ...which is ignoring the 70% or so of all of those people who never edited and can be switched over without incident. That sounds like the thinking of the parties in a real vote, 'if everyone who didnt vote, voted for us, we would have wiped the floor' Changing that 70% doesnt have any 'incident' but they can hardly be counted has casting their vote either way. This means that if 30% are active users, 3.8% means just over 12% of people have voted. The thing you're not understanding is that this isn't a vote. It's an agreement to distribute your work under a new license. No, the CT's are an agreement to contribute work, not to distribute it. That 70% *have* agreed to distribute their work under the new license. It is entirely valid for the camp that wants to move to the ODbL sooner rather than later to count the 70% in their stats, because accepting the new license is all that matters, not some imaginary war between yes and no. It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the YES statistics. Its valid to say all the people who have never edited would automatically have agreed to the CT's, any more than it is valid to say that all the people who have never edited would not have agreed to the CT's. Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the new CT's without incident. OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing to the new CT's, but to simply switch their accounts to the new CT's on the assumption they would agree, and it doesn't affect ant data currently in the OSM database, is not right. David Bob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
On 19 Apr 2011, at 09:41, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com The thing you're not understanding is that this isn't a vote. It's an agreement to distribute your work under a new license. No, the CT's are an agreement to contribute work, not to distribute it. Sorry, I misspoke. That 70% *have* agreed to distribute their work under the new license. It is entirely valid for the camp that wants to move to the ODbL sooner rather than later to count the 70% in their stats, because accepting the new license is all that matters, not some imaginary war between yes and no. It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the YES statistics. Its valid to say all the people who have never edited would automatically have agreed to the CT's, any more than it is valid to say that all the people who have never edited would not have agreed to the CT's. But again – it's not a matter of voting yes, it's a matter of agreeing to contribute under a license. There's no voting going on here, just a bunch of people letting OSM use their changes after the switch, and a bunch not letting them. No one is counting the 70% in the yes vote – instead, they are saying this 70% have no impact on us changing to the new license because no data will be deleted if we simply dump these users. Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the new CT's without incident. OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing to the new CT's, but to simply switch their accounts to the new CT's on the assumption they would agree, and it doesn't affect ant data currently in the OSM database, is not right. No one is proposing switching them to the new CTs – what's going to happen is that their data (all none of it) is simply going to be dropped. The biggest impact this will have on OSM is that 2 or 3 people will come back in a while going didn't I have an account here 2-3 years ago? Hmm, can't remember the name, I'll create a new one and will agree to the new CTs when they sign up again. Bob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
- Original Message - From: Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com To: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph On 19 Apr 2011, at 09:41, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com The thing you're not understanding is that this isn't a vote. It's an agreement to distribute your work under a new license. No, the CT's are an agreement to contribute work, not to distribute it. Sorry, I misspoke. That 70% *have* agreed to distribute their work under the new license. It is entirely valid for the camp that wants to move to the ODbL sooner rather than later to count the 70% in their stats, because accepting the new license is all that matters, not some imaginary war between yes and no. It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the YES statistics. Its valid to say all the people who have never edited would automatically have agreed to the CT's, any more than it is valid to say that all the people who have never edited would not have agreed to the CT's. But again – it's not a matter of voting yes, it's a matter of agreeing to Note, I did not use the word vote. contribute under a license. There's no voting going on here, just a bunch of people letting OSM use their changes after the switch, and a bunch not letting them. No one is counting the 70% in the yes vote – instead, they are saying this 70% have no impact on us changing to the new license because no data will be deleted if we simply dump these users. In your earlier email you said It is entirely valid for the camp that wants to move to the ODbL sooner rather than later to count the 70% in their stats. I'm glad you are now not proposing this should happen Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the new CT's without incident. OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing to the new CT's, but to simply switch their accounts to the new CT's on the assumption they would agree, and it doesn't affect ant data currently in the OSM database, is not right. No one is proposing switching them to the new CTs – In an earlier post it was written which is ignoring the 70% or so of all of those people who never edited and can be switched over without incident. I took this to mean that someone was suggesting they could be switched to the new CT's. David what's going to happen is that their data (all none of it) is simply going to be dropped. The biggest impact this will have on OSM is that 2 or 3 people will come back in a while going didn't I have an account here 2-3 years ago? Hmm, can't remember the name, I'll create a new one and will agree to the new CTs when they sign up again. Bob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
On 19 Apr 2011, at 11:09, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com On 19 Apr 2011, at 09:41, David Groom wrote: It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the YES statistics. Its valid to say all the people who have never edited would automatically have agreed to the CT's, any more than it is valid to say that all the people who have never edited would not have agreed to the CT's. But again – it's not a matter of voting yes, it's a matter of agreeing to Note, I did not use the word vote. It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the YES statistics.[David Groom] Pretty sure you did. contribute under a license. There's no voting going on here, just a bunch of people letting OSM use their changes after the switch, and a bunch not letting them. No one is counting the 70% in the yes vote – instead, they are saying this 70% have no impact on us changing to the new license because no data will be deleted if we simply dump these users. In your earlier email you said It is entirely valid for the camp that wants to move to the ODbL sooner rather than later to count the 70% in their stats. I'm glad you are now not proposing this should happen Absolutely I am – the stats are counting the number of people who we will not lose data from in the transition. We will not lose any data from these people whether they agree or not, so they're safe and should be counted in the stats. Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the new CT's without incident. OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing to the new CT's, but to simply switch their accounts to the new CT's on the assumption they would agree, and it doesn't affect ant data currently in the OSM database, is not right. No one is proposing switching them to the new CTs – In an earlier post it was written which is ignoring the 70% or so of all of those people who never edited and can be switched over without incident. I took this to mean that someone was suggesting they could be switched to the new CT's. My appologies, maybe they, or I have misunderstood. I would agree entirely that it would be invalid to decide that these people have agreed to the new license without letting them ever tick a box. It would however not be invalid simply to block their account and force them to agree, and it would be of no detriment to the project. Bob___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:43:06 +0100 Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote: We will not lose any data from these people whether they agree or not, so they're safe and should be counted in the stats. Are we counting humans or data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 Apr 2011, at 11:09, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the new CT's without incident. OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing to the new CT's, but to simply switch their accounts to the new CT's on the assumption they would agree, and it doesn't affect ant data currently in the OSM database, is not right. No one is proposing switching them to the new CTs – In an earlier post it was written which is ignoring the 70% or so of all of those people who never edited and can be switched over without incident. I took this to mean that someone was suggesting they could be switched to the new CT's. My appologies, maybe they, or I have misunderstood. I would agree entirely that it would be invalid to decide that these people have agreed to the new license without letting them ever tick a box. It would however not be invalid simply to block their account and force them to agree, and it would be of no detriment to the project. I try not to contribute to this bike-shedding, but I think the original quote was of Steve Coast -- and while I don't pretend to speak for him, I took his meaning to be that people will not be marked as accepting the CT and the ODbL, but rather since they have no actual contributions, we can switch them over to future phases without regard to data loss of any kind. I think we're now in the phase of you have to accept or reject CT's, where this was a voluntary process before. So, even if all of this 70% rejected the move, there would be a ZERO data loss. I don't believe he meant to imply that they would be automatiically marked as accepting; but rather that their acceptance or rejection wouldn't have a data impact. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
Am 19.04.11 schrieb Elizabeth Dodd: Are we counting humans or data? I count data at http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/ below the map, Toby and Fred count humans, while SunCobalt and wicking count both at http://odbl.de/ Fabian. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:44:48 -0400 Gerald A geraldabli...@gmail.com wrote: I don't believe he meant to imply that they would be automatiically marked as accepting; but rather that their acceptance or rejection wouldn't have a data impact. And thus the meaning of the question Are we counting humans or data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
