My thinking on this is very similar. I have no particular objection to the new licence and contributor terms - I don't really care which licence my contributions are governed by.
I am very surprised at the apparent tolerance to loss of data from the map for the sake of transferring to a more robust licence. I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. It is because it is not clear whether we will have to delete all data from these sources that I have not accepted the new licence yet - My view is that if we have to delete that data, then we should not bother re-licensing. I am concerned that if I accept the new licence/contributor terms that I will be seen to be supporting deleting this data, which I do not. I think this is the same issue as Ian's question about how we will decide if the change is right or not. If these issues have been resolved, and there is a mechanism for deciding what level of data loss is acceptable, then I will happily re-licence my own data, but I am looking for some reassurance before I do so. Regards Graham. On 16 April 2011 16:20, Russ Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the > community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that > it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never > thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that > that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the > idea of relicensing. > > The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for > creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe > SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As > if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps > it alive. > -russ > > Ian Dees writes: > > Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it > > doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for > > that. I have been beaten into submission. > > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be "No", > but in > > > > the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data > flowing > > > I'll > > > > eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my question was > everyone > > > > else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? > > > > > > FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but > > > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can > > > see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted > > > about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained > > > throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. > > > Turns out this stuff is complicated. > > > > > > No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to > change > > license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication > of > > the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly > and > > thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held > by > > the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. > > > > Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of > > those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a > small > > fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put > the > > cart before the horse. > > > > Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@into a > > field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll > go > > unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept > > button. > > Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it > doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for > that. I have been beaten into submission.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On > Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally <span dir="ltr"><<a > href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>></span> > wrote:<br> > > <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px > #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian > Dees <<a href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>> > wrote:<br> > > > > <br> > > > Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be > "No", but in<br> > > > the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data > flowing I'll<br> > > > eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my > question was everyone<br> > > > else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?<br> > > <br> > > </div>FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, > but<br> > > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I > can<br> > > see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel > consulted<br> > > about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained<br> > > throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.<br> > > Turns out this stuff is complicated.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, > it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change > license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of > the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and > thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by > the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued.</div> > > <div><br></div><div>Instead what happened is... none of that. I > appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new > license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on > it, but I think they put the cart before the horse.</div> > > <div><br></div><div>Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and > degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight > answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) > ) and click the accept button.</div> > > </div> > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
