Strange to see this discussion popping up now. Like Simon mentioned, we are about ready to switch the license. The major issues have been resolved, a procedure to report new claims of license infringement is in place, etc.<div>
<br></div><div>There will always be new issues popping up that could stop us from changing the license. "Look, we're not ready; everything is going to fail if we continue". Well, if you focus on the things that can go wrong it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy: it will fail. If we want to go forward we need to focus on our goals and try to work towards them.</div>
<div> </div><div>True, the board has pushed the license change forward this year. At several moments, when the process got stuck, the board had looked at alternatives to move the process forward. And yes, some of these alternatives might have been radical. That does not mean that the board has acted irresponsible, like it is suggested in this mail. On the contrary. If we had not have these discussions and the alternatives on the table, we would still have been far away for being able to change the license.</div>
<div>That would mean more and longer uncertainty about what potentially had to be deleted. That would mean more and long uncertainty with potential users about the usage of OSM data. That would have been irresponsible behaviour!</div>
<div>Many mappers stopped mapping, because they feared all their work would be deleted later on. That was bad for the project.</div><div><br></div><div>And look what we have achieved: during the time the redaction bot ran, there was a great re-mapping effort, which resulted in a surge of new streets added. When the redaction bot was finished, we ended with more streets in our database then when the redaction bot started. Yes, we can!</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks to the hard work of many people we're now finally on the brink of being able the end the license change process. That's a huge success! We can all give ourselves a fine pat on the shoulder. Well done!</div>
<div><br></div><div>We've taken the last hurdle, the finish is in sight. Let's go for that last sprint.</div><div><br></div><div>Henk</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Simon Poole <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div><em>storm</em> & teacup<br>
<br>
Sure, if we want to avoid any inkling of impropriety lets switch
the day before or after SOTM. In reality it is just coming
together such that it in all likelihood we will be able to switch
rsn.<br>
<br>
Am <a href="tel:31.08.2012%2015" value="+13108201215" target="_blank">31.08.2012 15</a>:36, schrieb Frederik Ramm:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>.................................We at DWG have already been
told in no uncertain terms to "nuke" whatever problematic data remains
as quickly as possible ("and sort out problems later"), and I believe
folks at LWG are feeling a similar pressure.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I believe the correct quote is "nuke the regions in question" (this
would have involved, among other things, deleting essentially all of
Germany and I don't think anybody involved took this at face value,
nor do I assume the intention was that we should take this
literally).<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>This doesn't sound good to me.
If it is true that issues remain to be solved, solve them BEFORE you
throw the switch. After so many years, diligence in the license change
must not be dented for a cheap show effect, for a "nice
opportunity" or just to have something to announce.
</pre>
</blockquote></div>
Two weeks ago we had no idea if , for example, the UMP cleanup would
take a week, 10 weeks, or a year. As I wrote in the beginning, it
just happens that things are coming together nicely (at last!). Once
Pauls redactions have completed, I'm not aware of further immediate
work necessary within the realm of current LWG policies. The DCMA
stuff is in place, I assume the CWG has stuff prepared. Since, as
previously, our data consumers will not automatically get updates or
a ODBL planet without deliberately switching, I don't see anything
that isn't in line with the OSM <span></span><a href="http://search?hl=de&sa=X&ei=DhNBUJKIOoXWtAa23oCgBw&ved=0CCAQvwUoAQ&q=courant+normale&spell=1" target="_blank">courant
normale</a> (it is no secret that I'm not particularly happy with
that, but that is a different topic) .<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Simon<br>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
osmf-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>