On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Chris Hunter <chunter...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like > the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have > major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled, > and feel that I can no longer participate in the OSM project.
That's too bad. I disagree with your "shoving" characterization, and with your specific aim at our pre-1776 Colonial Overlords. If I remember correctly, the LWG conference call today had callers from USA, Canada, Sweden, England, and Germany. This is not just about "the Brits". That's a minor issue and I'll not quibble about it. I'm sorry if you are frustrated that you have not been included in the discussion, or that you feel your concerns have not been heard. > I'm in the process of deleting all of my contributions. I'd like to encourage > each of you to do the same, but in the end it depends on your goals for the > project. > > I am being careful to only delete objects that have not been touched since I > created them - roads, portions of the TN River, etc... Please respect my > wishes and do not undelete these objects. I hope that you will reconsider this. Everything I've seen from the LWG has suggested that those who don't accept the ODbL will not have their data hijacked against their wishes. You could leave your contributions and they will remain available in the future ccbysa planets. They won't be carried forward against your wishes. Everything about this project, from day one, argues against that sort of bad behavior. I'm someone who has dabbled in the license change, for the last three or four years since I first heard of it. I pitch in a bit on the discussions on legal, or wiki, once in a while. Even with my limited exposure to the license change process I find it exhausting and a distraction from the things I enjoy about OSM. It's exhausting to revise another schedule. It's exhausting to publish another set of LWG conference call minutes. It's exhausting to have to run one more revision of an agreement past the lawyers. Again. I don't know how the LWG-regulars have been able to maintain their focus and commitment through the weekly conference calls. They've put hundreds of hours each into this. Because they believe that it is in the best interests of OSM. I haven't had the fortitude to spend as much time on the LWG as the others, but I do poke my head in once in a while. Initially, because I thought it was important, and I wanted to make sure the right folks were on the job. In my judgment, the right folks are absolutely on the job. Perhaps you'll reconsider. The license will not change today. The changes today only apply to new users, who will be presented, from the very beginning of their time with OSM, with the information that the license may change to ODbL, and with their assent to dual-license their data, right from the start. Informing new members is good, right? Would you consider participating with the LWG? Or at least listening in on the conference calls long enough to convince yourself that these aren't some sort of GeoData Pirates here to steal your contributions? These people, the LWG and the OSMF members, are your colleagues in creating a great Open GeoData project. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
