[OSM-talk] New site about the license change
jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 13 23:06:46 GMT 2010
> *The decisions have been made, so it's time to accept them or if you
don't, to leave.*
Thank you for your views on the OSM community. In my view it is a community
and the relationship does need nurturing.
Nowhere in my post did I express a view that a change of license is bad.
However changes need managing, if we are to come through the changes with a
working map then we really do need to plan the transition.
Realistically people use our maps, they need to know that OSM can be relied
upon. If you are using it to plan routes and half the roads suddenly
disappear it basically means its useless. There is an infrastructure of
users who actually use what we put in. How do we address their needs or do
we just dismiss them since we only map as a hobby and we don't expect anyone
to actually use the data.
It would appear in many places more than 90% of the existing maps need to be
remapped to retain a viable map. What is the transition plan? One might be
that all new data that gets added under the new license and some one
identifies those parts that need to be remapped within an area. Once the
area or city is down to 5% of the road network under the old license then
the older stuff gets pulled. My preference would be wait until the
residential, secondary and major roads are in place then declare those areas
under the new license.
Realistically I would carve the map up into tiles then as soon as a tile got
to 50% new license then block users adding data under the old license to
that tile. Some parts of the world will be ready to move to the new license
faster than others.
I don't see any one coming up with a list of requirements for different
users of our data and how we keep them happy as we transition.
On 13 November 2010 15:30, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's be serious for a moment...
> I've been involved in the project about two years, and even before
> then, the license issue has eaten away at the project.
> Few people have bothered to look at the license objectively. People
> have used it as an excuse to hate the project, to further their own
> goals, etc.
> If people want to fork OSM in software, or in data, they're free to do
> so. What they shouldn't be free to do is disrupt the project with the
> constant nagging, complaining, trolling, etc.
> The decisions have been made, so it's time to accept them or if you
> don't, to leave.
> I'm much more interested in mapping than I am having this endless,
> tiring, pointless debate.
> - Serge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk