Hi Henk,
[Henk Hoff, 14.08.2011, 14:25]:
If you talk about future license changes as defined in the CT: active
contributors are defined as contributors who have edited the map in at
least 3 different months (don't have to be consecutively) in the
previous year.
Exactly. So someone who has
[Henk Hoff, 14.08.2011, 19:00]:
If contributing in 3 different months during the last year would be too much
of a burden, are you then really involved?
If the sysadmins block your account because they want to force through a
future CT update that you deem problematic, then it is simply not
[Robert Kaiser, 11.08.2011, 21:17]:
Most of us always agreed that our data is the data of the OSM project as
soon as we contributed it, and that the project will always be able to use
it. Some disagree apparently and make the life of the project much harder.
Unfortunately it is not „the OSM
[Simon Poole, 12.08.2011, 11:29]:
Your changes, as has been pointed out to you before, wouldn't have been
backwards compatible with the initial CTs.
And in reply, I pointed out how this problem could be solved.
Just for the record: Both the wording of the CT and the behaviour of the
Hi Tom,
Where do I find the sysadmin policy for evaluating whether a blocking
request is considered „unreasonable“?
There isn't one. I'm not entirely sure what it would say if it existed
as it is hard to write such things down in concrete terms as it is by
definition a very subjective
Hi Kai,
One could have given voting rights to all people who have once reached
active contributor status and retain sufficient interest in the project
to keep their email address up to date and respond to the vote within 3
weeks.
I agree.
However, Frederick is correct, that this kind of
Hi tom,
The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible
to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an
ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested
and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in
Hi Tom,
Sure they won't be able to edit now until they accept, but we consider
that a reasonable step to try and move forward with the licensing process.
OK, then let me rephrase my concern using your language: „The CT make the
voting right dependent upon being able to edit. This gives the
Hi Grant,
thanks for your quick reply.
I agree with you and Frederik that the opt-out idea does not really work.
But this does not mean that my other, bigger, concerns about the CT are
invalid (listed in the email you just replied to). Note that these concerns
are directly linked to the
Hi Grant,
can I still expect a contructive reply to my email answering your question
about my concerns, or should I simply hit the „decline“ button?
Olaf
[Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer, 17.06.2011, 14:53]:
Hi Grant,
Please list the problematic language you are referring to... Your
email
Hi Rob,
thanks for your long., thoughtful email.
There are a number of conflicting opinions in the OSM community:
1. Contributions to OSM should be public domain to achieve maximum usefulness.
2. The contributions to OSM should be guaranteed to never end up in
proprietary databases if these
Hi Dermot,
That's not a bad start - but if I play spot-the-missing-bit, it looks
to me that you aren't prepared to trust 2/3 of the community to decide
that (for reasons not yet forseen) a licence other than the two you
list and which may not be copyleft/sharealike.
Please note that the CT
Hi Grant,
thanks for assuring me that the sysadmins have no interest in participating in
behaviour that is harmful to the community.
Does this mean that I will not be chucked out of the community by the
sysadmins?
I am willing to grant the OSFM + 2/3 of the community the right to relicense
Hi,
Kai described my concern with the currect CT wording very well.
Is the LWG still working on a reply?
I am asking because if the LWG is convinced that there is no problem, then we
need to explain our concern is better words.
Olaf
OSMF can't force you to accept them, but if you don't, you
Hi Frederik,
I think the weak point here is the focus of ownership in individual
contributions. I rather liked it how the new CT/ODbL made it irrelevant
whether something was yours or mine.
Yes, making it irrelevant whether something was yours or mine is exactly
the key point here.
There
Hi Mike,
But I don't understand, If you are
going to change the CT that has been signed by all these people, don't
you have to ask them to sign the new version as well? or did they sign
the blank check already and have no say?
The License Working Group says that people who agreed to CT v.1.0
Hi Matthias,
The License Working Group says that people who agreed to CT v.1.0 will
be allowed to switch to the new CT rules, but they will be forced to do
so.
Not exactly. The LWG say that the new CT are a sub-set of CT 1.0. There
is no need for people to explicitly agree to that,
Hi Frederik,
Your thought experiment was built on OSMF *changing* the CT.
My thought experiment was based on being locked out of the server, being
unable to contribute, and thereby loosing the right to vote.
This is pure speculation. I think that very people will be so
short-sighted that
18 matches
Mail list logo
