If these people's contributions to those objects were 'negligeable' then reverting those objects may hardly have an effect. They show green so we don't have to waste precious time 'fixing' them. If what those people contributed is not present anymore in the current version, then why would other contributors better/improved/corrected contributions be the ones that would disappear? If those contributors feel 'cheated', then there is something wrong with the way they think about their contributions and maybe it would have been better that they hadn't contributed to a project with a free license in the first place.
I can understand people when they can't agree to the CT's for a variety of reasons, but why they would feel 'cheated' when the rest of us are merely trying to continue where they left off minimizing the damage, is beyond me. Anyway, I'm sure that if they give us a list of objects they feel should disappear and what their contribution to that object was, that the rest of us will oblige and take out those bits of information from those objects, before recreating them. Thank you very much. Polyglot 2012/1/18 andrzej zaborowski <[email protected]> > On 16 January 2012 13:03, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 2012/1/16 Russ Nelson <[email protected]>: > >> The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very > >> conservative. Is that necessary? I'm pretty sure not, but it's what > >> we're going to have to live with. > > > > +1 > > Are you serious? Around where I map I estimate there are 500k to a > couple millions OSM objects who's authors have never agreed to ODbL or > OpenStreetMap CT, but which show green on the license change maps. > And although OSMF has not started publishing data under ODbL yet, > these people already feel like they've been cheated and have no say > over how their work is being used. > > They asked me as an ex-osmf member where the official license-clean > map was, where a human readable version of the OSM Contributor Terms > could be had, whether any of the recent recommendations on what can be > considered license-clean has ever been reality-checked with a lawyer, > etc. All these times all I could answer was "no" or "there's none" > and apologise. On the other hand when trying to have those issues > cleared up myself I'm never getting my mails answered. > > It really looks like OSM's goal once was to be whiter than white > legally, and now it's mostly about the risk of getting sued (expressly > stated in LWG communication). > > Cheers > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
