On 6 Dec 2009, at 10:25 , Ulf Lamping wrote: > Apollinaris Schoell schrieb: >> On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote: >>> I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a license >>> change at all. >> Sorry but this topic was many times on many lists, it's on the wiki. If you >> didn't care then why do you care now? > > You may search this lists archive about comments I gave in the past. I have > repeatedly asked for more openness and better inclusion of the community in > such important topics such as a license change. For example the osmf-talk > list was a result of complains I had in the past (at least it appeared after > discussions on this list about the openness of the OSMF). >
Can you make up your mind? First you write there was no asking in the last 2 years and now you write you had repeatedly raised concerns? The first statement sounds like you accuse the osmf and the LWG didn't care to inform mappers. This is simply not true. > Is it a requirement to be a member of the OSMF, regular taking part at the > SOTM and/or actively taking part in the legal-talk list to raise my voice > about things that are not well done IMHO? yes if you are concerned and interested about license you have to take part in legal-* as a minimum. I am not really interested that much in the details but still subscribed. this is easy enough to do. flooding anyone on talk with a discussion which doesn't belong here isn't the right way. > >> Richard was the first to say thanks for all the work done bu the LWG and I >> want to say that too. This is a very difficult task and it has to be done. >> the new license and the transition is not perfect. But the question must be, >> Is sticking to the old license better? > > In my opinion: yes. Simply because it is *known* by anyone interested. this is such a lame argument. if you really understand the old one it won't be difficult to learn about the new one. if you didn't care about the old one why bother with the new one? osm couldn't exist if there was no one starting something new even that Navtech, Teleatlas, Google, Yahoo … existed already. If osm turned beeing that conservative that everything has to remain the same then the project has no future. Let's move forward and fix the problems of the old license. The new isn't perfect but again is there a real reason why sticking to the old is better? > > Regards, ULFL _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
