[OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
balrogg at gmail.com
Sat Jan 28 05:47:04 GMT 2012
On 28 January 2012 05:43, Nick Hocking <nick.hocking en gmail.com> wrote:
> NE2/NE3 (Nathan) wrote
> "This condescending tone isn't useful. We should all care about the
> entire map, not just our little area."
So which part of this quote do you not agree with?
> someone who sprouts thing such as (quote)
> Now you can see how much vandalism the OSMF will carry out on April Fools
> (end quote)
> can not really expect to be taken too seriously here.
Are you responding to the part of NE2's email you quoted, or are you
only looking at the sender? Try reading what people say before
looking at who says it. If LWG is an authority to you and you're the
type of person with a great sense of authority then there's no chance
of you ever even considering an argument of someone who doesn't think
the license change is a step forward, is there?
I assume the issue you have with NE2's older message is the
classification of the planned action as vandalism. But really it is
strictly a logical consequence of not blindly assuming that the
license change process (in which the change from CC-By-SA to ODbL is
the smallest part) is good for the project. If you think it's not
vandalism then why not and why would you not explain it in the
relevant thread? Or maybe it's the assumption that if map data is
severed in an organised way then it doesn't count as vandalism any
more? I'm really only trying to understand what your line of argument
is because all you said above is "Nathan, you're obviously wrong".
More information about the talk