[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
balrogg at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 16:46:08 GMT 2012
On 18 January 2012 17:22, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the
intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to
OSM under CC-By-SA long before OSM existed. Now OSM uses their map
data and entire cities initially imported from their project are shown
green. This is a consequence of how LWG wrote the Contibutor Terms
and the cleanness-criteria.
The people in question might agree to ODbL, discussions are happening,
they're good-willing, but for that we need to stick to facts on both
> 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.
And this is something I can not understand. Say that you're
contributing to a project with some purpose or license. Now a
subgroup of contributors wants to change this and continue without any
losses. If the original contributors don't think the new direction is
correct, why should they all have to help that subgroup?
> 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.
That's the kind of youtube approach to licensing (it's ok to infringe
the license unless the authors complain) which I think was a no no in
OpenStreetMap until some time ago, the goal was to be whiter than
white and this has obviously changed. This is why I don't think
Russ's claim that osmf's approach is "conservative" is correct.
More information about the legal-talk