It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we voted the right way.<div><br></div><div>I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it did not seem like an issue. I can't even remember if I took much notice of the contributor terms....</div>
<div><br></div><div>I heard the arguments from a number of people warning of loss of data but made the judgement that individual contributors are unlikely to object to the change, and that the proposers of the new licence must have assured themselves that contributions based on large datasets such as nearmap must be compatible. It sounds to me that that judgement may have been flawed, so I should have taken more care.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The way I look at it is that if we will really have to remove large parts of the map of Australia (never mind other parts of the world - I don't think I have seen confirmation that the UK Ordnance Survey OpenData is compatible yet?) then moving to a new licence would be the wrong thing to do. I just do not see the existing situation as being broken enough to be worth the pain - this debate has used up a huge amount of people's time and effort which could have been used on something more constructive.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This probably brings us back to where this long email debate started - just how much data do we expect to lose, and what would we consider acceptable? My personal tolerance of loss of data is extremely small (maybe <1%). Once you start to talk about losing of the order 10% or more of a country, I have a lot of sympathy with the contributors in that area talking about forking the project.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Graham.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 July 2010 19:47, SteveC <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@asklater.com">steve@asklater.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit the OSMF has.<br>
<br>Steve<div><br></div><div><a href="http://stevecoast.com" target="_blank">stevecoast.com</a></div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><br>On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n <<a href="mailto:80n80n@gmail.com" target="_blank">80n80n@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@asklater.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:steve@asklater.com" target="_blank">steve@asklater.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm <<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank">frederik@remote.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors<br>
>> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one<br>
>> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number<br>
>> of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're<br>
>> the minority ;)<br>
><br>
> I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by<br>
> employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out<br>
> right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will<br>
> have been in vein exactly?<br>
<br>
</div>I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote?<br><br>Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a choice? Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree to?<br>
<br>My experience off list is clearly different to yours.<br><br>80n<br><br><br><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
Steve<br>
<br>
<a href="http://stevecoast.com" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://stevecoast.com" target="_blank">stevecoast.com</a><br>
<div><div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dr. Graham Jones<br>Hartlepool, UK<br>email: <a href="mailto:grahamjones139@gmail.com">grahamjones139@gmail.com</a><br>
</div>