All... I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that I am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back cleaning up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I would respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question.
Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been removed, too. --Gordon (Keeper of Maps) On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. > > If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and > why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it > was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up > your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big > improvement for OSM. Is that about right? > > > On looking more deeply into > > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license > > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently it > is > > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing > > document. > > You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional > license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by > approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the > time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email > within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and > approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. > > > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a > GPS > > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new CT > > but very little else. > > > > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. > > > > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed > but > > all have been ignored. > > > > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. > > Your premise is flawed. It's not "your" data once you contribute to a > collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us. > It's not your well if you help the village dig it. You can't decide > you would rather use it as a latrine. That's a decision the village > has to take together. > > The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are > offering each contributor the option to have their contributions > removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than > would be expected. It is an exceptionally cautious approach by the > OpenStreetMap Foundation and generous to a fault to those with qualms > about the license. > > > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced > > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM > in > > its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not > > acceptable to CANVEC. > > Canvec and GeoBase data are already approved for CT/ODbL. I think > those were announced here many months ago. > > So, you are happy with CT/ODbL with the data you mentioned above. So > you don't have an objection to CT/ODbL. Canvec and GeoBase data are > already compatible with CT/ODbL, so there is no need for you (or > anybody else) to remove that data based on CT/ODbL. Is that correct? > > > I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been > > deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed to > be > > an appropriate time to start deleting. > > You mean here? In ¶4 ? > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006044.html > > Frederik's email counsels against exactly what you think that you've > done. He says that prematurely deleting data of license decliners > would be inappropriate and cause unneeded community tension. But you > went ahead and deleted stuff. And Frederik's email has nothing to do > with this situation. You've accepted CT/ODbL. > > > Sorry for any inconvenience. > > Question open to the room. What now? What should John do? What should we > do? > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
