[talk-au] Fwd: license change map
stevagewp at gmail.com
Mon Nov 22 06:29:03 GMT 2010
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66 at gmail.com> wrote:
> For most people involved in OSM it is an enjoyable hobby, and that is why
> they do it. Data comes and goes, and I can't expect the data I enter to
> live for time immemorial. Of all the areas of that I mapped back in 2007,
> very few of them remain as I left them. Of all the Wikipedia text I created
> in 2007, I suspect not one word remains. I hope some of it was useful to
> someone while it lasted.
That's totally different - data being transformed by others is a good
thing, not a bad one. Nick was talking about people's hard work being
left by the wayside, consigned to oblivion.
But maybe I misunderstood the target of the email. I guess there are
three possible outcomes of the licence debate:
1) The CTs get sorted out so that NearMap etc are happy with them, and
OSM switches to ODbL. However, some people refuse to accept the CTs
2) The CTs never get NearMap's approval, and OSM switches to ODbL.
3) OSM doesn't switch to ODbL.
I had thought Nick's post was talking about scenario 2, and the work
that would be lost. But judging from other people's comments, it looks
like it was aimed at 1, and particularly people who decide not to
relicence their own work as ODbL. I confess to not having a lot of
sympathy for the latter.
Btw, that's a totally separate issue from the one Stephen Hope mentions:
>But I cannot agree to the new CT's in the format they are now. Any
>personal work I've done, not a problem. But I've used sources that
>were compatible with CC_BY-SA, and are compatible afaik with ODBL.
The proposed CTs are simply broken. But presumably people like Stephen
Hope and me will sign up as soon as that incompatibility is resolved -
it's not a philosophical objection, which people like Liz Dodd seem to
More information about the Talk-au