On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Liz, > > > Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you > > consider it, of course you think it is quite short. > > 80n first mentioned this deadline on 14th July, i.e. at the time that > was six weeks. > > It was unclear to me what exactly the deadline was about; he wrote "if > there isn't a clear majority by September 1st then I'd say the > relicensing has failed" but a majority of whom, in what question? > > Did anybody - you, 80n, anybody? - think that we'd somehow, in these six > weeks, be able to email every contributor, and ask them to relicense > their content, chase up those that don't answer, and consolidate the > results? - Personally I didn't even think about that deadline becasue it > seemed quite absurd. > > Plus, I don't know if we need any kind of deadline at all. > > We can simply decide to re-license, then ask everyone to agree, then > disallow contributions from people who haven't agreed. All the time, the > planet is still under CC-BY-SA. Then we evaluate the losses. Say we find > that 20% of data has not been relicensed. Ok, we start working on > replacing that data, using the work of people who are ok with ODbL. > After a while, only 10% of "old" data is still there. We continue, with > the planet still under CC-BY-SA. After another while, we have brought > down the losses to 1%, or 0.1%, or whatever. At that time we throw out > the rest and publish the planet under ODbL. > > Who cares if that time is one year in the future? If it helps to keep > our losses to a minimum - why not. > > As you know we have many people who don't fear the license change, but > they fear data loss incurred by people not agreeing. In theory, the LWG > could even set an arbitrary limit (e.g. "we promise not to re-license > the planet until global data loss is less than x%"). That should then > bring all those people on board who fear data loss. Then we just carry > on as I described above, slowly eliminating the "old" data by replacing > it with re-surveyed "new" data until we achieve what we want. > > Just a thought. Not necessarily bright. Might have its problems, might > also work. > > Bye > Frederik
Frederick i compliment you on actually thinking instead of holding firm in a particular viewpoint. I have not changed my mind, as you still will have changed the licence by stealth and creep. As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than ODbL, as it has been well checked and has government use. In other jurisdictions the matter is different. A previous idea of yours was different licences for different areas, and this has not been fully explored. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk