Well, not sure what to say, John. You've deleted stuff that I've worked on without my consent, so there's a problem. If the features you had deleted were still v1 that you had added, I could see an argument in support of what you've done, but many of the features appear to be >v1 with more than just your name attached to them, so you're unilaterally deleting features that are no longer purely yours. As one of the people affected by this, I do not give you this consent.
--G On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:50 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > No at the time the data was added there wasn't a problem. The problem > arose when the new CT retroactively changed the previously inserted data. > > Cheerio John > > > On 6 June 2011 18:30, Gordon Dewis <gor...@pinetree.org> wrote: > >> "What should John do?" >> >> John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added under >> the terms he agreed to and retroactively changing his mind and deleting >> everything is not an acceptable option. Your unilateral actions have >> impacted more than just "your" data. >> >> That is what John should do. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none acceptance. >>> This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this was not >>> possible. >>> >>> My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this >>> request has been ignored more than once. >>> >>> I don't feel at all comfortable with the new CT for all the work I've >>> done. I've used CANVEC as an example, its not so much the .odbl as the open >>> endedness of the CT. I can work with the new CT by restricting my sources >>> to ones that I have complete license control over which basically means >>> carrying the GPS than working from the traces but no imports. >>> >>> I agree selecting and deleting manually is not nice but once its done the >>> the community can repair the damage fairly quickly and it does remove the >>> problem data. >>> >>> as Richard says "Question open to the room. What now? What should John >>> do? What should we do?" >>> >>> I'm open to suggestions either of the first two would be more than >>> acceptable. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Cheerio John >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6 June 2011 18:10, Gordon Dewis <gor...@pinetree.org> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <rich...@weait.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> >>>>> 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 >>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-ca mailing list >>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
