[OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
tom.davie at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 10:37:19 GMT 2011
On 23 Mar 2011, at 10:09, John Smith wrote:
> On 23 March 2011 19:57, Thomas Davie <tom.davie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not forgetting that's what's really important is what percentage of edits come under the new license – the stats for that seem much more healthy.
> Considering that about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the edits in that figure would
> be for some of the big imports skewing things...
> Lies, damn lies and statistics and all that...
I'm not sure this is the lie though. The lie would be "zomg, not many users are accepting the ODbL", when what we care about is how much of the map would survive a transition, not how many users would.
As an aside – I only recently ticked the box because I had in error thought that I'd done it a long time ago. Perhaps it would be intelligent to nag users more about moving over. If we really want to push it, simply state that we won't accept more contributions until they accept the ODbL.
This would solve two problems:
1) It would get those who are simply too lazy/uninformed (like myself) to move over.
2) It would stop people who don't want the change to happen from diving in and recreating geometry for no reason other than to have had it created by someone who hasn't agreed to the ODbL.
More information about the talk