[Osmf-talk] Results of OSMF Member Vote
richard at systemeD.net
Thu Jan 7 23:38:25 GMT 2010
Matija Nalis wrote:
> Thanks for the history lesson, Richard. I was perhaps misunderstood, I did
> not meant to say that the issue was never risen before (which I'm aware it
> did), but only that (once a decision has been made that we must move from
> CC-BY-SA to something else) LWG itself ("they" I was referring in the
I know I've said this a million times before, but there is no "they".
It's a collaborative project. There is only "us".
LWG is the subset of "us" which has been brave enough to put the hours
in to formally discussing it, with minutes and everything. Anyone could
volunteer for LWG, you don't even need to have been elected as a board
member. I believe, though I stand to be corrected, that Ulf Möller is a
good example of someone who was openly critical of the licence change
process, put his money where his mouth is, and joined LWG to help change
things for the better. Hats off to him.
So LWG is just a continuation of the debates we've been having for five
years now. They weren't tasked with choosing PD or copyleft, no -
because no overwhelming mandate for that had ever become apparent. If
the majority of OSM contributors had been agitating for PD for a long
while, with comparatively little opposition voiced, I'm sure they would
There's still nothing stopping anyone else putting forward a PD vote.
OSMF exists to support, not control the project. It has no special
powers: only that of contacting every OSM contributor by e-mail, and I
suspect it would be generous with that (within the bounds of privacy
etc. etc.) if a coherent case, with a wide groundswell of support, was
put forward by someone else.
But that hasn't yet happened. The only person who's actually getting up
and doing something about it is Brendan Morley with his CommonMap
effort. I wish him luck and I greatly respect what he's doing, because
it's not enough to criticise LWG; you have to go out and do something
yourself. Start the evangelism effort. Show those of us who've been
promoting PD for five years where we went wrong. But we used to have a
saying on these lists that saying "should" doesn't achieve anything -
you have to go and do something.
>> In really broad terms: the Doodle poll says 11% don't want to change,
>> 39% want ODbL, 50% want PD but will agree to ODbL. So if you change to
>> PD (or CC0 or whatever), you lose 50% of the data. If you change to ODbL
>> you lose 11% of the data.
> But the poll  actually does not say that.
Mein gott, we are an pitiable bunch of geeks, aren't we? I mean, I write
a paragraph that begins "In really broad terms" and people immediately
hone in on the numbers to say "Well actually considering the standard
deviation of this and that and the icosahedral hilbert quadtrees and "
I repeat: really broad terms. It's a vastly imperfect approximation but
nonetheless all we have at present. It is also what I, even as a PD
supporter, recognise to be roughly the informal consensus in five years
of talking to people about this.
It's back to the "mandate" again. I wish this wasn't this case and that
others had been agitating for PD as long as Frederik and I have. But if
you think that most CC-BY-SA advocates are going to prefer BSD-style to
"yet another copyleft licence", well... just, well.
> As I said, I'm aware of the issue being brought up before; it's just
> feel that once a decision was made that license WILL be changed
> relatively recently?),
No decision has been taken. It can't be taken without the permission of
the users. We don't yet know whether the licence will be changed.
The process was more like this. The licence has always been
controversial, as per those old postings I dredged up. As time went on,
more people _perceived_ that the licence was a problem for their
proposed usage of OSM. Then ODbL came along. A significant number of
active contributors considered that it could potentially be a better fit
to OSM than CC-BY-SA is. Since then we have, as a community, resolved to
consider it and put it to the userbase. If it's not accepted, it's not
accepted; and we start again, give up, or leave.
for those who really are interested:
a) "yes I will accept the new license Odbl" - 128
b) "yes and consider all my data Public domain" - 182
c) "no I will not accept the new license Odbl but I will if it is
reworked" - 14
d) "no, I will not accept Odbl and wants to continue with CC-BY-SA" - 42
e) "I don't know yet" - 51
of those who expressed an opinion (a+b+c+d = 366):
those prepared to accept ODbL, maybe with some reworking: (a+b+c) / 366
those not prepared to accept ODbL even if reworked: d / 366 = 11%
those prepared to place their data in the public domain: b / 366 = 50%
those who voted in a non-PD category stating that their work could be
licensed under either share-alike licence (a+c+d) / 366 = 50%
my personal preference: "Dr" Liz / a large axe = FTW!!111
More information about the osmf-talk