Dear all,
how about a brief companion FAQ? I am happy to help with this (as mentioned
in Milan)
Michael, would you like to collaborate on this with us?
heather
Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>
> Am 08.08.2018 um 19:14 schrieb Michael Reichert:
> > ..
> > I read the draft and I think that is far too long. It does not invited
> > to be read by the users. This can lead to following issues:
> Just to be clear, we (the LWG) would prefer that it be shorter too, it
> is just the amount of territory that needs to be covered that makes it
> long and complicated (I'm fairly sure that it is actually shorter than
> the WP ToU that it is derived from).
>
> > - Users don't read it because it is too boring, too long and too
> > difficult to understand (especially for the majority being not native
> > English speakers or understanding no English at all). They would be
> > surprised by the important parts later.
> > - Already active members of the community refuse to accept the terms
> > because they don't understand the needs and the content.
> >
> > If we need all that rules written down there, we should add a summary of
> > the points which are most important from our point of view at the
> > beginning. It could look like this:
> >
> > - You have access to personal data (OSM metadata). Please handle it
> > appropriate.
> > - Your contributions must not violate copyright.
> > - You must be 16 years or older to join OSM.
> > - We don't guarantee anything. [insert better wording here]
>
> We'll be discussing both the concept of a human readable summary and
> translations at a our meeting today (both ideas were floated at SOTM).
> I wouldn't put too much hope in it though, in the end we need users to
> agree to the terms themselves and not to a summary, adding one just
> means there is even more text that needs to be read (have a look at
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en for the WP ToU).
> Translations are mainly an issue of cost (both initial and maintenance).
>
> > The OSMF has already a block policy ruling when users get blocked
> > permanently and how. If we add terms to the website, we should integrate
> > the block policy into the terms. This has the advantage that user
> > actively agree the block policy which makes it a lot easier to use it in
> > court (I am not talking about a fictional case here).
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Michael
> You were just complaining about the ToU being too long, adding the
> kitchen sink is definitely not going to make them shorter :-).
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
