On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast <[email protected]> wrote: > Anthony > > The reason we have a hostile relationship is because of all your spamming > and trolling.
I'm not FOSM, so that's rather irrelevant, even if it were true. I also thought that relationship had been mended, as the previous conversation we had was cordial. > You were kicked from the legal list, the only person I'm aware > of to have managed that. I was placed on moderation on the "legal" list. I have no idea if I am unique in that respect. > I suspect the real reason you want a nice relationship is funding and other > benefits we've worked hard for, while refusing to help with the community > process to switch licenses. I'm not interested in your funding. Not in the least. You're right that I think I would benefit from a nice relationship, though. And you're right that I don't want to help the community switch licenses, as I don't agree with the new license (I explained that to you last time we emailed, which apparently you've forgotten). As you say that the license disagreement is a "minor difference", I'm not sure why you're harping on it. I agree with you that we both have much more in common in our greater goals of mapping the world. > At this point really the positive gestures need to come from you, for > example helping us switch so we can all (including FOSM) move on. If the only way you are willing to have a mutually beneficial relationship is if I/we/FOSM/CommonMap agree to help you switch to a license that I/we/FOSM/CommonMap do not approve, then it's not going to happen. I cannot support a switch to the ODbL. But I am very much willing and interested in supporting OSMF in its larger goal of mapping the world. Anthony > On 7/8/2011 6:23 AM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Steve Coast<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I mean throw away the efforts of all the licensing work we've done >>> because >>> one guy doesn't like technical detail X or has moral objection Y. That >>> is, >>> that we have spent many man years on this and there is no way to make >>> everyone happy. We tried hard and it's time to move on. Also, once we're >>> switched it's much easier to make the kind of fixes you want as >>> subsequent >>> switches are orders of magnitude more easy. Thus, lets put our minor >>> differences aside and work for the greater goals we have, like mapping >>> the >>> world. >> >> I for one think a partnership between FOSM and OSMF would be a great >> thing. We *are* both trying to map the world. I've made this >> invitation before but I'd like to make it again: Work with us to help >> preserve, and keep up to date, the CC-BY-SA data which otherwise would >> be left to rot in a static "final dump". If you believe, as you say, >> that CC-BY-SA might work out the problems (which you say are minor) in >> the 4.0 license, then you'll be especially glad you have FOSM to help >> you switch back. >> >> There's no reason that FOSM and OSMF have to have a hostile >> relationship. We're both trying to map the world, under the license >> we deem most appropriate. >> > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
