>>>>> "mc" == Michael Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> writes:
mc> As the license change process evolved, concern was expressed that mc> an unacceptable amount of data might be lost from the current mc> version of the OSM database and consensus was reached that phase 5 mc> [1] - the actual license cut-over - should only happen when a mc> "critical mass" was achieved. mc> mc> The question I ask you is, do you agree that we have reached critical mass? This is ridiculous. How can the LWG ask whether the amount of data which is to be deleted is acceptable, when it hasn't yet decided on what is to be deleted? - there is a huge difference between the two "damage-estimation" sources that you cite (OSMI/WTFE and odbl.de) - noone seems able to answer the question of split ways. If interpreted rigourously with respect to copyright, it would significantly increase* the amount of damage currently estimated by WTFE. If not interpreted rigourously, there seems to be little point in the licence change since much data will be tainted. That no answers to such fundamental questions are available, just two months before the planned switchover, is ludicrous. * Something less than double, depending on how many non-acceptors have been using split/merge operations during editing (according to my understanding). -- Eric Marsden _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
