The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come from people who have accepted the new license.
Its a lawyer thing and I'm not even sure that in the US OSM has a solid case anyway. Street names are facts for example. Cheerio John On 13 December 2011 16:03, Graham Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? >> I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where >> they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 >> path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the >> ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't >> be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated >> by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision - >> shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the >> originator positioned them? Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless >> destruction and that makes me really quite sad. >> >> I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do > this. Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to this and think > about 'reasonableness'? > > I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone > who has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a > shame, but it is their choice. > > From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly - > I gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand > earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither > accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be > deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence > change? > > I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor > declining the terms: > > - They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can > not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an > awkward case, but it is up to them to make their intentions clear. > - They left the project having made their contribution and are now not > contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that they do > not respond. > - They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so > are not answering their emails. > > In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that the last two have the > best interests of the project at heart and do not want to have their > contributions deleted, so they should be retained. If at some point they > contact us to say that they object to their contributions being in the > database, then yes, delete them, but leave them there until they do. > > A pragmatic approach along these lines would seem quite reasonable to me, > and would save a lot of un-necessary re-work - deleting contributions of > people that we can not make contact with just seems excessive, and is > probably not what the non-contactable contributors wanted anyway. > > Graham. > > > -- > Graham Jones > Hartlepool, UK. > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
