On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 23:54 +0200, Henk Hoff wrote: > During the time of the OSMF-membership vote, there was also a vote > initiated by the community, which can be seen here: > http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w > Outcome: 75% would accept the new license, 11% undecided, 14% not (at > that time)
You say '75% would'. How many of those 75% have made edits using a source that is CC-BY-SA? I think in principle nearly 100% of OSM users support the continuation of OSM as its own entity, but only 2% acknowledge that they cant relicence that which they do not own in the first place. I suspect the numbers are significantly higher. One sample I derived from a small criteria in Australia, showed that nearly 25% of users who agreed to the ODbL and CT have used CC-BY-SA sources (based on their use of the source= tag). I can only imagine this number would increase if I extended this search to look for more than 2 source tags, or looked for other derived data (for example, CC-BY-SA tagged data that is split or joined). This means that even though 99% of people clicked 'accept' (a check in Australia actually shows the figure at closer to 15%), a large portion of that data is dirty and cannot be used in OSM under the new licence, even though the users who contributed it have decided to relicence it. If this situation was reversed and a major project derived data from OSM, and then in the future asked users to accept a new licence, would OSM have a problem with that? If not, why not.. If so, why is there a double standard? David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
