Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Op 12-08-11 23:34, Nic Roets schreef: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmannmichaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: May I remind you a litte bit on the history of the licence change... (all as far as I know) While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about the license. BTW: So, did the panel ASK the individuals attending what license they want ? To my recollection, there was not a question on what specific license we wanted, but what kind of elements the license should have. Attribution and Share-Alike where two elements an OSM license should have. Just to be clear: I was not part of the panel, nor was I actively involved with the Foundation at that time. Cheers, Henk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
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 contributed for several years, but only during two months of the previous year, is not allowed to vote. Also, the sysadmins reserve the right to block the edits right of accounts (as they are currently doing). They decided not to give us assurances that our editing right will not be blocked again in the future, e.g. to enforced an update to the CT. This means that the right to vote is directly dependent upon the behaviour of the sysadmins. And some of them have made it very clear in emails to this list that they are against changing this. Olaf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
[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 possible to contribute in 3 different months. The situation would change dramatically if the sysadmins were to guarantee that they will never remove edit rights as they currently do. At least one sysadmin has stated on this list that the legal team should ignore my concern about the wording of the CT, claiming that the sysadmins will always act responsibly. At the same time, he said that the sysadmins are not responsible for the action of blocking my edit right because the legal team has asked them to do so. I interpret this to mean that no one is willing to act with responsibility, and that my concern is therefore valid. Olaf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On 14/08/11 18:14, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: If the sysadmins block your account The sysadmins have not blocked your account. The system has been changed to implement the licence changeover plan. You may not like the plan, but neither its form nor the effects of its implementation are actions that the sysadmins have initiated against you. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Op 14-08-11 19:14, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schreef: [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 possible to contribute in 3 different months. The situation would change dramatically if the sysadmins were to guarantee that they will never remove edit rights as they currently do. Sysadmins are not just blocking accounts. If you're referring to the fact that you haven't agreed with the CT and therefore cannot edit anymore ... That's part of the democratic process, not the sysadmins. There has been an long and extensive process in getting where we are now. There have been polls with the community, there has been a vote amongst the OSMF membership, etc. All point to a (large) majority accepting the new CT / license etc. You may not like the outcome, like you may not like your current government. But it's a fair and democratic process. The CT is not going away. It's now up to you whether you accept the CT or not. If not, I'll advise you to select another hobby. I invite you to accept the CT. Then we can all work on making OSM the most acurate and detailed map which is also openly and freely available; so extraodinary and amazing new things can be created for all to use. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On 14 August 2011 22:39, Henk Hoff o...@toffehoff.nl wrote: Op 12-08-11 23:34, Nic Roets schreef: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmannmichaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about the license. BTW: So, did the panel ASK the individuals attending what license they want ? To my recollection, there was not a question on what specific license we wanted, but what kind of elements the license should have. Attribution and Share-Alike where two elements an OSM license should have. This is one of the areas where I think the licence-change process has fallen down - it's never been particularly clear when decisions have been made. Like many people, I wasn't involved with OSM at that time (I discovered it later that year). If the consensus from the the meeting was that we wanted attribution and share-alike, was that decision clearly noted down somewhere? Fast forward to mid 2009 or even 2010, and it wasn't clear to me or many other people that we'd actually made that decision. When I joined the various debates in legal-talk and other places, I was still under the impression that we (as general contributors) could have a say about that. Not that I necessarily think it should be different, but I was under the impression that it was still up for discussion. There are a lot of things that now seem to have been decided quite a while ago, but it was never clear to many people that they had been decided already. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
