[OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
dair at refnum.com
Thu Mar 5 10:04:14 GMT 2009
>> I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users
>> needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever
>> made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for
>> anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem than
>> you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier than convincing you I
>> don't have a satanic portal in my basement.
> You know what you're saying? You don't care about 100000 people who are
> interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data of the
> 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed?
That's not what he is saying at all.
Nobody is planning to ditch contributions below some threshold for the sake
of it, however things should not stall simply because one person who's
contributed one post-box two years ago can't be contacted any more.
All he's saying is that although we might have 100K registered users, only
30K of them have made an edits whatsoever.
Looking at the stats page, only about 8K are making edits each month (a
different 8K each month, sure).
This paper (http://tinyurl.com/5p2w65) looked at contributors in the UK, and
found that of the 1100 users in their sample some 92 of them had contributed
80% of the data (or 0.08% - about 8K again, a nice coincidence).
> This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be.
> Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are
> just out to grab their work when you argue like this?
Nobody is trying to grab anyone's work. Doing so would take far less effort.
But a licence change is effectively like an (internal) fork, and we may find
that some people disagree so strongly that their contributions can't be
Or simply that we decide to be very cautious, and feel we can't take forward
data we can't be 100% sure about.
It's sensible to understand just what impact that would have, since we are
going to lose some data no matter what (some contributors are now dead;
we're not going to contact their relatives, so we either unilaterally put
their data under a new licence or we remove it).
> Even though I am in favour of the licence itself, this way of thinking
> is unacceptable to me.
So what are you doing to help?
dair at refnum.com http://www.refnum.com/
More information about the talk