SteveC <steve <at> asklater.com> writes: >>With a gun at their head: "Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th >>February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed >>downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.". >> >>If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding >>about voting.
>For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the >OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then move >on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do. But this is exactly what is objected to! First the LWG 'decides what to do' and then the ordinary contributors are given a stark choice: agree or have your data deleted from OSM. Shouldn't the contributors 'decide what to do' without the 'gun to their head', as Ulf called it? One way to do that would be to have a vote of all contributors, not just OSMF members, and only if that shows clear support for relicensing (defined as 'yes, I think it is a good idea' - not 'yes, I will reluctantly agree to avoid seeing my hard work deleted') move on to the unpleasant but sadly necessary business of getting permission to relicense and deleting data that can't be relicensed. Now, this might be what is planned; there is a lot of confusion on this subject. I know that the final decision on whether to proceed will depend on how many contributors are willing to relicense, though I don't know what exact numbers are being considered. However, if the choice offered is 'say yes or be kicked out' then this is not a fair choice. It would reassure everyone if you and the OSMF could state that there will be a fair consultation or vote of the members, rather than presenting them with a fait accompli from the LWG. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
