<HTML>
<FONT FACE="MS Shell Dlg" DEFAULT="FACE"><FONT SIZE="1" POINTSIZE="8" DEFAULT="SIZE">On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:39:13 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>Hi,<BR>
><BR>
>Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:<BR>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz <<FONT COLOR=0000ff><U>edodd@billiau.net<FONT COLOR=000000 DEFAULT="COLOR"></U>> wrote:<BR>
>>> For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been re-<BR>
>>> edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray<BR>
>> <BR>
>> If someone presents me with a boolean "Do you allow relicensing under<BR>
>> the ODbL" I'll have to say no because some of my edits are derived<BR>
>> from CC-BY-SA data I don't have permission to license (and I probably<BR>
>> can't even recall what all of it is).<BR>
<BR>
>First, I would appreciate if people could stop talking about "nuking" data.<BR>
<BR>
Fair enough, I hadn't had much sleep that morning.<BR>
<BR>
>The non-relicensed data will sit in some kind of separate, possibly <BR>
>read-only server, from where it can be accessed, just like now, under <BR>
>the terms of CC-BY-SA. This server may or may not be made available by <BR>
>OSMF but it will certainly exist, and OSMF has already said that a full <BR>
>history dump will be provided.<BR>
<BR>
Fred, not a criticism of you in particular, as I appreciate your time in explaining the situation.<BR>
<BR>
I very tempted though to make this mean that instead of my data being "nuked", it will be "orphaned" instead.<BR>
<BR>
This is still Hobson's choice for me. I'm just kicking myself that I naively assumed that the custodians of my data contributions had my interests at heart. Now I realise the *custodians* are a much bigger threat to the longevity of my contributions than any "10^100" megacorp.<BR>
<BR>
All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no real-world "exploits".<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Brendan<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>