jaakkoh wrote: > This may well be my first post to the talk list Brave soul. :) (But welcome, seriously.)
> Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2 > I'm seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange, > too). Don't get too disheartened. To take your second point first, in my experience most people are actually pretty amenable to being contacted. A lot will simply not have noticed the original mail. Others may have seen it but not realised that it's really something they need to respond to. Personal contact saying "hi, I'd really like to keep your data" means a lot. When you do manage to contact them, the 98.5% agree/1.5% split (of those who've responded thus far) suggests that in most cases they'll be happy for the data to continue through to ODbL+CT - so it'll probably be ok. If not, as David Groom mentioned, the idea of allowing people to say "I relicense these bits, but not those" was once mooted - along the lines of what you suggested. There wasn't much take-up but I see no reason why it couldn't be resurrected if really needed. It doesn't even need to be part of the formal relicensing process: you or I or anyone could write a tool that deleted a problematic object, and recreated it with a clean history, _if_ all the contributors gave their permission to the tool author (and documented the permission). But I do genuinely think it won't be necessary: most people are happy to click 'Agree' if you ask. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6505963.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
