[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Nick Hocking]

"The only thing that gives me hope is that all the current data can be
forked into a new project"

Hi Neal,

I don't think you have any problem then.  Contribute to FOSM or even just
continue to use the OSM toolset and database. Your data will still be
available to the FOSM project.

For the time being you will have the best of both worlds.  Eventually you
will have to chose which project you wish to support because eventually
(hopefully sooner rather than later) they will be mutually exclusive.

Cheers
Nick
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Neal Schulz]

Hi Nick,

But where is the incentive to do this? Why would I keep contributing  
to a project that thinks it is OK to delete their contributers data? I  
know they haven't deleted my data yet but it is on the table. The fact  
that it is on the table means there is no incentive to keep  
contributing to the project.


The only thing that gives me hope is that all the current data can be  
forked into a new project and I can follow my data there. It is safer  
to wait for the dust to settle before investing effort that might go  
to waste if this doesn't happen.


Cheers,
Neal

On 11/04/2011, at 1:45 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:


Neal wrote  "This sums up me too."

Hi Neal,

If you do want do do some mapping then there is still a way to do it.

Create a new account, accept the CT's and then

If you want to do some survey mapping, just be careful not to work  
on areas that have been mapped or touched by OSMers
who have stated that they will never accept either the OSM CT or  
licence change.


If you want to do some mapping from home, then BING imagery is  
usually more than adequete and is and will continue to
be OSM comliant. This way your efforts will not be in vain whether  
you stay with OSM, or branch off to another project.


Cheers
Nick
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Smith" 

To: "Nick Hocking" 
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors




On 11 April 2011 13:45, Nick Hocking  wrote:

Create a new account, accept the CT's and then


Has the CTs been updated to allow for this, or do they still refer to
a natural person?



The live CT's have not yet been updated to allow this, but the draft CT's 
will.


Frankly I'm at a loss to see why the simple change to the CT's to make it 
clear they apply to a user account, and not a natural person, was not 
implemented months ago.


David


Also that doesn't help if someone only wishes to support projects
using share a like licenses.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au








___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[edodd]

>
> If you want to do some mapping from home, then BING imagery is usually
> more
> than adequete and is and will continue to
> be OSM comliant. This way your efforts will not be in vain whether you
> stay
> with OSM, or branch off to another project.
>

I map in places where the best imagery is usually Landsat. Don't get
excited about Bing imagery. Outside of the bigger Australian cities it is
targeted at commercial targets - mining sites and around where I live, the
growing of illegal crops.




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[John Smith]

On 11 April 2011 13:45, Nick Hocking  wrote:
> Create a new account, accept the CT's and then

Has the CTs been updated to allow for this, or do they still refer to
a natural person?

Also that doesn't help if someone only wishes to support projects
using share a like licenses.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Nick Hocking]

Neal wrote  "This sums up me too."

Hi Neal,

If you do want do do some mapping then there is still a way to do it.

Create a new account, accept the CT's and then

If you want to do some survey mapping, just be careful not to work on areas
that have been mapped or touched by OSMers
who have stated that they will never accept either the OSM CT or licence
change.

If you want to do some mapping from home, then BING imagery is usually more
than adequete and is and will continue to
be OSM comliant. This way your efforts will not be in vain whether you stay
with OSM, or branch off to another project.

Cheers
Nick
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Neal Schulz]

Hi,

This sums up me too. After years of mapping in Australia (when I  
started in Tasmania the map was literally blank) the threat of data  
deletion is the most de-motivating thing ever. I have used nearmap so  
I am of the understanding I CAN'T accept the terms. I also agree that  
many who accept probably have no idea of the legal issues and will be  
creating tainted data.


I am waiting for an outcome and hoping for the best but the longer I  
wait the the more de-motivated I become and the community has  
certainly lost momentum. There is no incentive to keep mapping while  
there is a chance all of your work will be deleted in the future.


Like Michael sometimes I can't help myself and do some more mapping,  
but it still feels futile.


Cheers,
Neal

On 07/04/2011, at 10:57 PM, Michael Hampson wrote:


I hear you Liz and All Blokes, it is sad. Really tried to ignore the  
politics as I just wanted to map things to help out the local  
community and since I heard about the changes I have almost given  
up. Now I only map when I can't help myself.


Might be time to retire from my mapping and let someone else do the  
Empires work!!

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[{withheld}]

On 08/04/11 10:46, John Smith wrote:
> On 8 April 2011 07:30, {withheld}  wrote:
>> Very naughty thought. I wonder what the reaction would be to a simple,
>> formal request to OSMF to re-grant you your rights to OSM data along the
>> same alignments on the basis OSM is backing up an effective copy of your
>> lost data?
> 
> That isn't needed since at no point under the new or old CT do you
> sign your copyright away, previously/currently for some you agreed to
> allow OSM-F to publish your work under cc-by-sa, and possibly in
> future you agree to allow OSM-F to be able to license a copy of your
> data as they see fit. In both cases you still own the copyright, but
> of course in future you have to deal with more than just copyright and
> so that would become a lot less clear if you could do what you want
> with your own submissions if you attempt to extract them from the
> database.

Agreed - and thanks for stating the point I had intended so clearly.

The naughty aspect springs from my awkward attempt to imply the FUD
(fear/uncertainty/doubt) campaign could possibly be played two ways.

That is not to say I seriously think such an approach would be
acknowledged; let alone honoured.

Reminder: this particular sub-thread was attempting to address the
problems of a user who wishes to recover as best they can their own
original survey traces lost as a result of overly-trusting OSM-F to do
the right and honourable thing by their volunteer community.

Nearly choked on that. Wonder why?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 10:06, Ben Last  wrote:
>
> To be clear; we're not "refusing" anything - our licence has remained the 
> same since we launched, and we haven't changed it.  The new OSM CTs are 
> incompatible with it.

Several people have made similar comments, they looked into the
license OSM-F was publishing their work under and was happy that it
was strong copyleft, and that is the only reason they submitted
contributions to OSM-F, otherwise we might as well all be working for
google for free, especially since they have better aerial imagery than
Bing and yahoo etc...

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 07:30, {withheld}  wrote:
> Very naughty thought. I wonder what the reaction would be to a simple,
> formal request to OSMF to re-grant you your rights to OSM data along the
> same alignments on the basis OSM is backing up an effective copy of your
> lost data?

That isn't needed since at no point under the new or old CT do you
sign your copyright away, previously/currently for some you agreed to
allow OSM-F to publish your work under cc-by-sa, and possibly in
future you agree to allow OSM-F to be able to license a copy of your
data as they see fit. In both cases you still own the copyright, but
of course in future you have to deal with more than just copyright and
so that would become a lot less clear if you could do what you want
with your own submissions if you attempt to extract them from the
database.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Ben Last]

To be clear; we're not "refusing" anything - our licence has remained the
same since we launched, and we haven't changed it.  The new OSM CTs are
incompatible with it.
Regards
Ben

On 7 April 2011 08:14, John Smith  wrote:

> On 7 April 2011 10:06, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir  wrote:
> > What happened to NearMap?
>
> Nearmap have refused to allow data derived from their imagery to be
> used without guarantee of attribution and share-a-like in a future
> license, or having a guarantee that such data would be removed if
> relicensing occurs.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>



-- 

*Ben Last*

*Development Manager*
[image: nearmap.com] 

[image: leave us a message on facebook]
  [image:
follow us on twitter]   [image: nearmap
youtube channel]   [image:
linkedin]
[image: Get your Free nearmap.com newsletter
now!]
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Ian Sergeant]

On 8 April 2011 05:47, John Henderson  wrote:

> It wouldn't be nearly so bad if we could simply agree to the new terms for
> objects outside Nearmap coverage (and for future contributions), but have
> our "contaminated" work removed.

Well our first priority should be to try and get an agreement with
Nearmap.  Hopefully to allow use of their imaging ongoing, but if that
turns out not to be possible to hope that they may just allow existing
work to be kept.

In the unfortunate eventuality that Nearmap derived data has to be
removed from the main OSM trunk, then we will need a few tools to do
this effectively.  I'm sure a tool along the lines of what you have
suggested is technically feasible.

But as I previously said, we are going to have to claw some positivity
back if we are going to maintain OSM as a useful data set if the
licence/contributor terms change is forced.  Given the effort put into
the mapping of these areas, I think it is worth a bit more a bit more
to keep as much data as possible intact.  I don't want to sit by and
watch it dissolve.

Ian.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[John Henderson]

On 08/04/11 07:30, {withheld} wrote:


VNT-2: You didn't upload the traces to OSM, and thus have the capability
to legitimately download them again; do you? Worth checking:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user//traces.


Unfortunately no.  The few traces I've uploaded have been the "pure" 
ones, where I've kept in the traffic lane.  When I'm mapping, I tend to 
wander around and mark waypoints that I make notes about.  It all makes 
sense to me if I process it when I get home.  But I don't want other 
mappers being mislead by my meanderings, as I'm often mapping roads 
which have no traces already.


John H

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 07:30:29 +1000
{withheld}  wrote:

> >> Whilst I agree / commiserate with your basic point (been there;
> >> done that; spent the fuel), don't you still have the raw traces
> >> from your device? I certainly do, and consider at no point have I
> >> ever given up my rights to them.  
> > 
> > I couldn't see any point in keeping those traces at the time, so a
> > couple of years OSM work of mine will be lost to OSM.  
> 
> That is annoying. I feel for you; as I nearly did the same thing; and
> in fact have lost some information as well,but obviously not quite so
> severely.

I have the vast majority of mine. I removed them from OSM already, and
have them roughly sorted by year. 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[{withheld}]

On 08/04/11 06:37, John Henderson wrote:
> On 08/04/11 06:25, {withheld} wrote:
> 
>> Whilst I agree / commiserate with your basic point (been there; done
>> that; spent the fuel), don't you still have the raw traces from your
>> device? I certainly do, and consider at no point have I ever given up my
>> rights to them.
> 
> I couldn't see any point in keeping those traces at the time, so a
> couple of years OSM work of mine will be lost to OSM.

That is annoying. I feel for you; as I nearly did the same thing; and in
fact have lost some information as well,but obviously not quite so severely.

Very naughty thought. I wonder what the reaction would be to a simple,
formal request to OSMF to re-grant you your rights to OSM data along the
same alignments on the basis OSM is backing up an effective copy of your
lost data?

VNT-2: You didn't upload the traces to OSM, and thus have the capability
to legitimately download them again; do you? Worth checking:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user//traces.

VNT-3: Until the full licence change goes through you still have rights
under the SA clause to export "your" area of the map. There are any
amount of utilities available to strip your real data out of the
resulting .osm file(s). XAPI may be your friend here. Try something
like: http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/*[@user=OSMid|OSMid2|OSMid3]
This is quite crude of course: it "scrapes off" details of the latest
edits made in OSM by user OSMid (optional aliases OSMid2 etc.) A full
approach - which I have not experimented with - would be to extract the
list of changesets you had made and to perform a similar extraction for
each one.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[James Livingston]

On 06/04/2011, at 10:58 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:50 AM, James Livingston  
> wrote:
> 
>> Time to go read the CTs again...
> 
> That's one of the sections of v1 that has been clarified in v1.2.4.
> Have a look.
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms

Ah, we're going to enforce a Accept/Decline choice in a few days to continue, 
but the CTs currently shown are outdated?

I'd assumed the CTs that you got shown a few days before it got enforced would 
be the latest ones :)


> If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You 
> have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under 
> our current licence terms
..
> OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a 
> database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: 
> ...

I'll probably send this question to legal-talk when I get home, that sounds 
like it lets you upload data which is compatible with the current license but 
will need to be removed under a relicensing. Wasn't the whole point of the CTs 
that we could do relicensing (including CC-BY-SA to ODbL) without getting 
everyone's pemission?


-- 
James
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[John Henderson]

On 08/04/11 06:25, {withheld} wrote:


Whilst I agree / commiserate with your basic point (been there; done
that; spent the fuel), don't you still have the raw traces from your
device? I certainly do, and consider at no point have I ever given up my
rights to them.


I couldn't see any point in keeping those traces at the time, so a 
couple of years OSM work of mine will be lost to OSM.


John H

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[{withheld}]

On 08/04/11 05:47, John Henderson wrote:
> On 07/04/11 21:10, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> 
>> It's sad that this is happening
>> A vibrant aussie community has gone down the drain within the last 12
>> months.
>> I have spent 3 1/2 years (nearly) adding big tracts of eastern
>> australia to the osm map, and now think I will do something else with
>> my spare time.
> 
> Agreed.  Quite aside from other considerations, the fuel cost and the
> wastage of having to do all this work again is staggering to the
> individuals concerned.
> 
> It's not as if it can be dome in a lifetime by waiting for OSM
> contributors to take all these roads again without going out of their way.
> 
> It wouldn't be nearly so bad if we could simply agree to the new terms
> for objects outside Nearmap coverage (and for future contributions), but
> have our "contaminated" work removed.

Whilst I agree / commiserate with your basic point (been there; done
that; spent the fuel), don't you still have the raw traces from your
device? I certainly do, and consider at no point have I ever given up my
rights to them.

Maybe I am wrong; but what is to stop me from reformatting, retracing or
extracting information from these (in my case GPX) traces, and
subsequently giving this new work away to absolutely anybody I choose?

Certainly it will be a lot of work and a monumental annoyance to do so;
but I don't remember signing away this aspect of my rights as primary
producer of survey data.

Any thoughts?

P.S. I make no claim to being a "significant contributor"; but if my
efforts are expunged I shall ever harbour deep malevolence toward the
organisation that does so regarding the hole in the map which is left;
even if nobody else notices!

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[John Henderson]

On 07/04/11 21:10, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

> It's sad that this is happening
> A vibrant aussie community has gone down the drain within the last 12
> months.
> I have spent 3 1/2 years (nearly) adding big tracts of eastern
> australia to the osm map, and now think I will do something else with
> my spare time.

Agreed.  Quite aside from other considerations, the fuel cost and the 
wastage of having to do all this work again is staggering to the 
individuals concerned.


It's not as if it can be dome in a lifetime by waiting for OSM 
contributors to take all these roads again without going out of their way.


It wouldn't be nearly so bad if we could simply agree to the new terms 
for objects outside Nearmap coverage (and for future contributions), but 
have our "contaminated" work removed.


John H

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Michael Hampson]

On 7/04/2011 9:10 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
All Blokes  wrote:


I was very keen and learning ...had done a few edits not many
but I was planning on getting right into it.

I don't agree with the new licensing and have just been sitting on
the side reading.


It's sad that this is happening
A vibrant aussie community has gone down the drain within the last 12
months.
I have spent 3 1/2 years (nearly) adding big tracts of eastern
australia to the osm map, and now think I will do something else with
my spare time.



I hear you Liz and All Blokes, it is sad. Really tried to ignore the 
politics as I just wanted to map things to help out the local community 
and since I heard about the changes I have almost given up. Now I only 
map when I can't help myself.


Might be time to retire from my mapping and let someone else do the 
Empires work!!
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Grant Slater]

On 7 April 2011 12:07, Elizabeth Dodd  wrote:
>
> I don't see a lolcat on that page, was it on another page?
> Certainly the lolcat on the front page of the osm wiki makes me wonder
> about the IQ of the page writers
>

I removed the lolcat from the decline page + translations... It was
the wrong lolcat, we need a sad cat/kitten. The funnier looking the
better.

Regards
 Grant

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[John Smith]

On 7 April 2011 21:07, Elizabeth Dodd  wrote:
> I don't see a lolcat on that page, was it on another page?
> Certainly the lolcat on the front page of the osm wiki makes me wonder
> about the IQ of the page writers

Looks like Grant has removed it from the current version of the page,
but the history is still there:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Contributor_Terms_Declined&oldid=549554

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
All Blokes  wrote:

> I was very keen and learning ...had done a few edits not many
> but I was planning on getting right into it. 
> 
> I don't agree with the new licensing and have just been sitting on
> the side reading. 
> 

It's sad that this is happening
A vibrant aussie community has gone down the drain within the last 12
months.
I have spent 3 1/2 years (nearly) adding big tracts of eastern
australia to the osm map, and now think I will do something else with
my spare time.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:53:02 +1000
Leon Kernan  wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> > Supposedly it sends you to this flippant page if you decline the CT:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributor_Terms_Declined
> >
> >
> >
> I think the lolcat picture on that page tells us exactly what they
> think of those of us that won't / can 't / don't want to accept their
> terms.
> 
> Certainly helps give the impression of a professional organisation...
> (not)

I don't see a lolcat on that page, was it on another page?
Certainly the lolcat on the front page of the osm wiki makes me wonder
about the IQ of the page writers

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[David Murn]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 03:19 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
> >
> > For clarity: (according to odbl.de)
> > In Australia:


> For pete's sake! Stop making up blatantly untrue stuff.
> Those are likely the precentages if we moved *today* without even
> formally contacting/emailing anyone.

I never made anything up.  The closest I came to 'making up' was being
creative with the summary of 3 relevant regions and rounding the numbers
up.  The figures I quoted came from the URL I gave, and anyone is
welcome to research this themselves.  The webpage suggests that these
are the accurate percentages (with upto 1 week delay).

> > It is fairly clear that the Australian issue has very little value to
> > those in Europe in control of the project at the moment.  The fact that
> > the number of users lost is in the same ballpark while the amount of
> > data lost is significantly higher in our part of the world, seems to
> > show the regions and the users whos interests they are looking out for.
> 
> Please stop making grossly untrue statements.

What is untrue?  Again, I only summarised what the statistics show.  The
fact that these statistics go against the ODbL propoganda, doesnt make
them grossly untrue, it just makes them at odds with what some may
believe.  If you have figures for Australia which disprove the numbers
on odbl.de then feel free to use them and cite your source, if you cant
disprove the numbers and simply feel that theyre grossly untrue, then
maybe you need to comprehend the statistics better.

If the Australian issue is so important, as others have suggested why
isnt OSMF seeking to make a rapid agreement with NearMap as was done
with Bing?

David

> >> > - Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may
> >> > continue editting normally.  Even if they decline, they may continue
> >> > editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in.
> >
> > Maybe I missed the announcement, but is there now an option to record
> > that you decline the licence?
> >
> 
> Read the original mail that Mike posted to the DEV mailinglist... it
> is about planning the changes to the editor software before main
> announcements.

As far as I could tell, this email to the dev list is for what happens
if people have chosen to decline the licence.  The last Id heard, it was
not possible to decline the licence, only to accept it.

The issue of accepting/declining the licence is what Im talking about
here, not the issue of what to do in the future if someone has declined
(if such a mechanism is put in place).

David


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Grant Slater]

On 7 April 2011 00:37, David Murn  wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:09 +1000, Michael Hampson wrote:
>> So is Phase 4 the end for those that don't agree? What happens to the
>> data if we don't agree? and the data built on top of that data?
>
> Well, it depends what you read.  According to the wiki, stage 4 is when
> OSM asks the community what will should happen for those who havent
> accepted the licence.  One has to wonder if any of the comments from the
> past year or two will be taken into account when those in power decide
> to ask us mere mushrooms what we think.
>
>> > For clarity:
>> >
>> > - This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before
>> > May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the
>> > voluntary re-licensing program.
>
> For clarity: (according to odbl.de)
> In Australia:
> - This will remove 57% of users
> - This will remove 67% of nodes, 66% of ways and 86% of relations
>
> In UK:
> - This will remove 65% of users
> - This will remove 40% of nodes, 40% of ways and 10% of relations
>
> In Europe:
> - This will remove 61% of users
> - This will remove 20% of nodes, 20% of ways and 15% of relations
>

For pete's sake! Stop making up blatantly untrue stuff.
Those are likely the precentages if we moved *today* without even
formally contacting/emailing anyone.

> It is fairly clear that the Australian issue has very little value to
> those in Europe in control of the project at the moment.  The fact that
> the number of users lost is in the same ballpark while the amount of
> data lost is significantly higher in our part of the world, seems to
> show the regions and the users whos interests they are looking out for.
>

Please stop making grossly untrue statements.

>> > - Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may
>> > continue editting normally.  Even if they decline, they may continue
>> > editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in.
>
> Maybe I missed the announcement, but is there now an option to record
> that you decline the licence?
>

Read the original mail that Mike posted to the DEV mailinglist... it
is about planning the changes to the editor software before main
announcements.

Regards
 Grant

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Leon Kernan]

>
>
>
> Supposedly it sends you to this flippant page if you decline the CT:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributor_Terms_Declined
>
>
>
I think the lolcat picture on that page tells us exactly what they think of
those of us that won't / can 't / don't want to accept their terms.

Certainly helps give the impression of a professional organisation... (not)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Ian Sergeant]

On 6 April 2011 21:47, All Blokes  wrote:

> I was very keen and learning ...had done a few edits not many but I
> was planning on getting right into it.

> I don't agree with the new licensing and have just been sitting on the side
> reading.

Just out of interest, I'd like to hear your opinion from the
perspective of a new user, unjaded by the ugliness that has sometimes
characterised this conversation on both sides.

>  I feel like I am the customer who walked into the shop and didn't get any
> service.

The licence discussion has been a huge distraction  to the project,
which is unfortunate.  Hopefully we'll be out the other side soon,
with each OSMer choosing their path onwards, or perhaps choosing to
move on.

However, I'm sure if you want to talk about mapping, or need any help
there are many OSMers who would be more than happy to lend an hand.

Ian.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[John Smith]

On 7 April 2011 10:31, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir  wrote:
> Surely that's a simple procedural matter then (CT 1.2.4 already has

It always has been, but as others have pointed out, control of the
process has gone on largely without proper consultation and feedback
to better shape what mappers want.

> the "we reserve the right to delete your content for whatever
> reason"), especially when changes through the NearMap editor can be

Unfortunately the language used as part of that clause isn't strong
enough, they may decide it's too difficult and they can't be bothered
to remove it.

> If LWG can negotiate special conditions
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/d8/Bing_license.pdf) with
> Bing, surely they can work something out with NearMap.

It seems to me that they don't want to do anything that would limit
them from moving to PD in future.

> I wouldn't want to get into a situation where you have to negotiate
> with every service/data provider (that's the point of open data
> licencing!) but a company that covers more area than some european
> countries to the community for free deserves a fair go.

That isn't the problem since most projects have always used fixed
license conditions, eg linux kernel will always be GPL based, in fact
it's only commercial companies that require you to hand over all
rights like the CTs demand.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Alex (Maxious) Sadleir]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:14 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 7 April 2011 10:06, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir  wrote:
>> What happened to NearMap?
>
> Nearmap have refused to allow data derived from their imagery to be
> used without guarantee of attribution and share-a-like in a future
> license, or having a guarantee that such data would be removed if
> relicensing occurs.
>

Surely that's a simple procedural matter then (CT 1.2.4 already has
the "we reserve the right to delete your content for whatever
reason"), especially when changes through the NearMap editor can be
tagged appropriately automatically. That would be the same situation
we're in now; every major licence change has to be a fork of the old
project and data owners can stop contributing in the future... that
doesn't affect the past so end users can be assured the data is
appropriately licensed.

If LWG can negotiate special conditions
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/d8/Bing_license.pdf) with
Bing, surely they can work something out with NearMap.
I wouldn't want to get into a situation where you have to negotiate
with every service/data provider (that's the point of open data
licencing!) but a company that covers more area than some european
countries to the community for free deserves a fair go.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[John Smith]

On 7 April 2011 10:06, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir  wrote:
> What happened to NearMap?

Nearmap have refused to allow data derived from their imagery to be
used without guarantee of attribution and share-a-like in a future
license, or having a guarantee that such data would be removed if
relicensing occurs.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[John Smith]

On 7 April 2011 09:37, David Murn  wrote:
> In UK:
> - This will remove 65% of users
> - This will remove 40% of nodes, 40% of ways and 10% of relations
>
> In Europe:
> - This will remove 61% of users
> - This will remove 20% of nodes, 20% of ways and 15% of relations

I wonder the difference between the UK and the rest of Europe has
something to do with the Ordinance Survey data requiring attribution
etc...

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Alex (Maxious) Sadleir]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:37 AM, David Murn  wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:09 +1000, Michael Hampson wrote:
>> So is Phase 4 the end for those that don't agree? What happens to the
>> data if we don't agree? and the data built on top of that data?
>
> Well, it depends what you read.  According to the wiki, stage 4 is when
> OSM asks the community what will should happen for those who havent
> accepted the licence.  One has to wonder if any of the comments from the
> past year or two will be taken into account when those in power decide
> to ask us mere mushrooms what we think.
>
>> > For clarity:
>> >
>> > - This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before
>> > May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the
>> > voluntary re-licensing program.
>
> For clarity: (according to odbl.de)
> In Australia:
> - This will remove 57% of users
> - This will remove 67% of nodes, 66% of ways and 86% of relations
>
> In UK:
> - This will remove 65% of users
> - This will remove 40% of nodes, 40% of ways and 10% of relations
>
> In Europe:
> - This will remove 61% of users
> - This will remove 20% of nodes, 20% of ways and 15% of relations
>
> It is fairly clear that the Australian issue has very little value to
> those in Europe in control of the project at the moment.  The fact that
> the number of users lost is in the same ballpark while the amount of
> data lost is significantly higher in our part of the world, seems to
> show the regions and the users whos interests they are looking out for.
>
>> > - Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may
>> > continue editting normally.  Even if they decline, they may continue
>> > editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in.
>
> Maybe I missed the announcement, but is there now an option to record
> that you decline the licence?

http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms

Supposedly it sends you to this flippant page if you decline the CT:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributor_Terms_Declined

"If you have reached this page because you declined the OpenStreetMap
contributor terms, that's too bad.
We're sorry that you have decided to not accept the OpenStreetMap
Contributor Terms. That means that you can not contribute data to
OpenStreetMap."

It would have been good for the dust to settle on CT acceptance by
data owners before moving to Phase 3:
Are they compliant with the spirit and letter of CC-BY 2.5/3.0
Attribution AU? (then the Australian Government data issue is solved?)
If not why not; are data owners giving up something that they
previously had and intended when they licensed their data?
Is it just about the level of attribution? That would be a lot easier
to get clarified than trying to get a whole new suite of licences
approved.
What happened to NearMap?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[David Murn]

On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:09 +1000, Michael Hampson wrote:
> So is Phase 4 the end for those that don't agree? What happens to the
> data if we don't agree? and the data built on top of that data?

Well, it depends what you read.  According to the wiki, stage 4 is when
OSM asks the community what will should happen for those who havent
accepted the licence.  One has to wonder if any of the comments from the
past year or two will be taken into account when those in power decide
to ask us mere mushrooms what we think.

> > For clarity:
> > 
> > - This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before
> > May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the
> > voluntary re-licensing program.

For clarity: (according to odbl.de)
In Australia:
- This will remove 57% of users 
- This will remove 67% of nodes, 66% of ways and 86% of relations

In UK:
- This will remove 65% of users
- This will remove 40% of nodes, 40% of ways and 10% of relations

In Europe:
- This will remove 61% of users
- This will remove 20% of nodes, 20% of ways and 15% of relations

It is fairly clear that the Australian issue has very little value to
those in Europe in control of the project at the moment.  The fact that
the number of users lost is in the same ballpark while the amount of
data lost is significantly higher in our part of the world, seems to
show the regions and the users whos interests they are looking out for.

> > - Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may
> > continue editting normally.  Even if they decline, they may continue
> > editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in.

Maybe I missed the announcement, but is there now an option to record
that you decline the licence?

David



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Kevin Sheather]

Paul,

 

I know how you feel. I came home from a trip to remote Australia with lots of 
material to upload and was met with the “traffic” generated by this issue. I 
don’t understand what’s it’s all about. The Wicki, like it is in most things, 
is confused and inconclusive. No one has contacted me directly and I just don’t 
think it is worth the effort.

 

I get the impression that this show is run by Europeans so I am not surprised.

 

Kevin

 

From: All Blokes [mailto:speed_13...@yahoo.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, 6 April 2011 9:48 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

 

I was very keen and learning ...had done a few edits not many but I was 
planning on getting right into it. 
I don't agree with the new licensing and have just been sitting on the side 
reading. 

I have some firm views against the new licensing and also about the methods 
that have been used in the implementation, but I don't feel I have been a 
member of the community for long enough to be vocal in expressing my opinion.
I doubt very much that I will edit or map in OSM again. 
Perhaps in one of the derivatives.

 I feel like I am the customer who walked into the shop and didn't get any 
service. 
Not because the staff were busy, but because they were standing round talking 
amongst themselves about how quiet it has been...  and so because I did not get 
any service I didn't complain, I just walked out of the shop.
Regards,
Paul.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Richard Weait]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM, 4x4falcon  wrote:
>> There are around 12,000 accounts which have prior to May 2010
>> contributed 95%+ of all the data.
>>
>> Regards
>>  Grant
>
> Also how many of these are actual people not import accounts eg ABS2006?

I don't know, I haven't tried to distinguish between bot and non-bot
accounts.  Some are import-accounts.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[4x4falcon]

There are around 12,000 accounts which have prior to May 2010
contributed 95%+ of all the data.

Regards
  Grant


Also how many of these are actual people not import accounts eg ABS2006?

Cheers
Ross


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[4x4falcon]

There are around 12,000 accounts which have prior to May 2010
contributed 95%+ of all the data.




So how many of these 12,000 accounts have agreed to the new CT's?



Cheers
Ross

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Richard Weait]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:50 AM, James Livingston  wrote:

> Time to go read the CTs again...

Hi James,

That's one of the sections of v1 that has been clarified in v1.2.4.
Have a look.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[James Livingston]

On 06/04/2011, at 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:
> ... the License Working Group intends implementing Phase 3 of the
> license change implementation plan [1]. This involves blocking edits
> with HTTP "Forbidden" messages until the individual contributor has
> Accepted/Declined the new terms by logging in manually via browser at
> http://www.openstreetmap.org. The text of the message will explain the
> reason. This will happen Real Soon Now, I hope within the next few
> days. We will give at least 48 hours notice on the main Talk and other
> mailing lists of the exact date/time.

Time to go read the CTs again...

> You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder (to the 
> extent the Contents include any copyrightable elements).
...
> If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and 
> warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit 
> the Contents and grant the licence below.


Right, so I still can't agree because I have uploaded data from third parties 
(e.g. CC-BY govt data), which I'm not the copyright holder for. Does anyone 
know if someone ever sort out a way of moving some changesets into new 
account(s), for different sources?

-- 
James
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Michael Hampson]

So is Phase 4 the end for those that don't agree? What happens to the 
data if we don't agree? and the data built on top of that data?


I have read what I could about the new Contributor Terms and I get the 
drift about the CC-BY-SA and ODbL. Just not sure about the OSMF bit.


Regards,

Michael Hampson
0416 685 785

On 6/04/2011 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

-- Forwarded message --
From: Michael Collinson
Date: 6 April 2011 19:08
Subject: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...
To: d...@openstreetmap.org


... the License Working Group intends implementing Phase 3 of the
license change implementation plan [1]. This involves blocking edits
with HTTP "Forbidden" messages until the individual contributor has
Accepted/Declined the new terms by logging in manually via browser at
http://www.openstreetmap.org. The text of the message will explain the
reason. This will happen Real Soon Now, I hope within the next few
days. We will give at least 48 hours notice on the main Talk and other
mailing lists of the exact date/time.

Please would you check that your editor software has some mechanism
for your users.

For clarity:

- This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before
May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the
voluntary re-licensing program.

- Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may
continue editting normally.  Even if they decline, they may continue
editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in.

Mike

Michael Collinson
License Working Group


[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_3_-_Existing_Contributor_Mandatory_Re-licensing_.28Phase_2_.2B_5_or_10_weeks.29

___
dev mailing list
d...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[All Blokes]

I was very keen and learning ...had done a few edits not many but I was 
planning on getting right into it. 

I don't agree with the new licensing and have just been sitting on the side 
reading. 


I have some firm views against the new licensing and also about the methods 
that 
have been used in the implementation, but I don't feel I have been a member of 
the community for long enough to be vocal in expressing my opinion.
I doubt very much that I will edit or map in OSM again. 
Perhaps in one of the derivatives.

 I feel like I am the customer who walked into the shop and didn't get any 
service. 

Not because the staff were busy, but because they were standing round talking 
amongst themselves about how quiet it has been...  and so because I did not get 
any service I didn't complain, I just walked out of the shop.
Regards,
Paul.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[{withheld}]

On 06/04/11 19:31, John Smith wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Michael Collinson 
> Date: 6 April 2011 19:08
> Subject: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...
> To: d...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> 
> ... the License Working Group intends implementing Phase 3 of the
> license change implementation plan [1]. This involves blocking edits
> with HTTP "Forbidden" messages until the individual contributor has
> Accepted/Declined the new terms by logging in manually via browser at
> http://www.openstreetmap.org. The text of the message will explain the
> reason. This will happen Real Soon Now, I hope within the next few
> days. We will give at least 48 hours notice on the main Talk and other
> mailing lists of the exact date/time.
> 
> Please would you check that your editor software has some mechanism
> for your users.
> 
> For clarity:
> 
> - This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before
> May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the
> voluntary re-licensing program.
> 
> - Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may
> continue editting normally.  Even if they decline, they may continue
> editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Michael Collinson
> License Working Group
> 
> 
> [1] 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_3_-_Existing_Contributor_Mandatory_Re-licensing_.28Phase_2_.2B_5_or_10_weeks.29

Thank you John for forwarding this.

Would you please pass back to Michael my respectful disdain for this
notification which provides no reassurance nor guidance whatsoever. (I
am straining to be polite; in case this is not obvious!)

So some change may be made - maybe even soon - to force a decision the
result of which may be ignored - by people who may not be using the
system any more. Which may not have any effect?

I will say no more than express my bewilderment why this
announcement(Meta-b Control-k)waste of time and effort was even
considered for posting as I doubt I will be able to refrain from insult.

I emphasise this last statement is not directed at John.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Grant Slater]

On 6 April 2011 10:51, Elizabeth Dodd  wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:31:53 +1000
> John Smith  didn't write: (Michael Collinson
> did)
>
>> For clarity:
>>
>> - This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before
>> May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the
>> voluntary re-licensing program.
>
> those who see a big hole in the numbers
> total contributors at May 2010 ~250,000
> Those who have signed up ~9,000
> Those who have not signed up ~77,000
>
> the gap I guess refers to accounts which have been completely idle and
> will be prevented from editing
> (source, LWG minutes 5th April 2011)
>

Yes, those that have been completely idle.
They signed up prior to May 2010 and have not made any edits. They are
not prevented from editing, but they will be presented with the new
CTs when they login to edit.

> I still have trouble understanding how 9,000 of 86,000 is a large
> majority.
> Those who signed up after May 2010 got no option, so they can't be
> construed as supporting either side.
>

There are around 12,000 accounts which have prior to May 2010
contributed 95%+ of all the data.

Regards
 Grant

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:31:53 +1000
John Smith  didn't write: (Michael Collinson
did)

> For clarity:
> 
> - This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before
> May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the
> voluntary re-licensing program.

those who see a big hole in the numbers
total contributors at May 2010 ~250,000
Those who have signed up ~9,000
Those who have not signed up ~77,000

the gap I guess refers to accounts which have been completely idle and
will be prevented from editing
(source, LWG minutes 5th April 2011)

I still have trouble understanding how 9,000 of 86,000 is a large
majority.
Those who signed up after May 2010 got no option, so they can't be
construed as supporting either side.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...

[John Smith]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Michael Collinson 
Date: 6 April 2011 19:08
Subject: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...
To: d...@openstreetmap.org


... the License Working Group intends implementing Phase 3 of the
license change implementation plan [1]. This involves blocking edits
with HTTP "Forbidden" messages until the individual contributor has
Accepted/Declined the new terms by logging in manually via browser at
http://www.openstreetmap.org. The text of the message will explain the
reason. This will happen Real Soon Now, I hope within the next few
days. We will give at least 48 hours notice on the main Talk and other
mailing lists of the exact date/time.

Please would you check that your editor software has some mechanism
for your users.

For clarity:

- This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before
May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the
voluntary re-licensing program.

- Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may
continue editting normally.  Even if they decline, they may continue
editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in.

Mike

Michael Collinson
License Working Group


[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_3_-_Existing_Contributor_Mandatory_Re-licensing_.28Phase_2_.2B_5_or_10_weeks.29

___
dev mailing list
d...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au