[OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
grahamjones139 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 27 19:44:43 GMT 2012
Thank you for the detailed report and request for comments. This is my
view on where we are.
I think clarity on what will be deleted is very important, because without
that it is hard to make a judgement on the cost-benefit of going ahead with
the licence change. I will probably need a reminder about the positive
side of the balance, because as I see it at the moment, it is mostly
We should not assume that contributors' acceptance of the new licence means
that they are particularly in favour of it - they may have just accepted
because it was easier than getting involved in the argument, and did not
see it as doing any harm. From a personal point of view I fall into that
category - I have no interest in changing the licence, but am not against
it per-se, so accepted. Because I see negligible benefit in changing the
licence, I find it very hard to justify data loss by progressing with it.
Some of the numbers in the links you provided look very low to me, but I
may have been interpreting them wrong.
I also think it is a huge distraction of effort and resources - people have
written tools (like those you refer to) to look at the possible effect of
the change, and lots of people are putting effort into 're-mapping' areas.
I feel there would be more constructive things to do. Given these
issues, I wish I had thought about the consequences a lot more before I
voted in favour of starting the process!
But if we assume that there will not be a huge cry to abandon the change,
as there seem to be a lot of people who are genuinely in favour of it, then
I would like to see clarity on what will be deleted.
My main issue with it is the assumption that is currently being made that
people who do not respond to requests to accept or decline the new licence
are treated as decliners. I have tried to contact some people in my are
who made a few edits and disappeared, but they have not responded. I
think it is overly pessimistic to treat these as decliners - we should
assume they accept unless they complain and make a definitive statement
that they decline. This is especially important for people who may have
deceased - I would not like to think that if my near miss cycling accident
had turned out worse, that my contributions would be deleted - that does
not seem right to me.
Without clarity on what the criteria for deleting information will be, I do
not think I can make a judgement on whether we have reached a
Sorry for the rambling reply. To summarise my views:
- We should not assume that everyone that has accepted the licence is
particularly in favour of it - they may be pretty much neutral on it.
- We should not treat non-responders as decliners, as this is overly
pessimistic, and in my judgement is unlikely to be what the non-responders
- I will make a judgement on whether we have reached the 'critical mass'
once we have clarity on what
Thank you again for asking for feedback, and sorry I did not give you a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk