My thinking on this is very similar. I have no particular objection to the new licence and contributor terms - I don't really care which licence my contributions are governed by.<div><br></div><div>I am very surprised at the apparent tolerance to loss of data from the map for the sake of transferring to a more robust licence.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It is because it is not clear whether we will have to delete all data from these sources that I have not accepted the new licence yet - My view is that if we have to delete that data, then we should not bother re-licensing. I am concerned that if I accept the new licence/contributor terms that I will be seen to be supporting deleting this data, which I do not. I think this is the same issue as Ian's question about how we will decide if the change is right or not.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If these issues have been resolved, and there is a mechanism for deciding what level of data loss is acceptable, then I will happily re-licence my own data, but I am looking for some reassurance before I do so.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div><br>Graham.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 April 2011 16:20, Russ Nelson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nelson@crynwr.com">nelson@crynwr.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the<br>
community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that<br>
it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never<br>
thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that<br>
that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the<br>
idea of relicensing.<br>
<br>
The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for<br>
creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe<br>
SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As<br>
if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps<br>
it alive.<br>
-russ<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Ian Dees writes:<br>
> Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it<br>
> doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for<br>
> that. I have been beaten into submission.<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally <<a href="mailto:dermotm@gmail.com">dermotm@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees <<a href="mailto:ian.dees@gmail.com">ian.dees@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be "No", but in<br>
> > > the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing<br>
> > I'll<br>
> > > eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my question was everyone<br>
> > > else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?<br>
> ><br>
> > FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but<br>
> > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can<br>
> > see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted<br>
> > about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained<br>
> > throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.<br>
> > Turns out this stuff is complicated.<br>
><br>
><br>
> No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change<br>
> license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of<br>
> the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and<br>
> thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by<br>
> the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued.<br>
><br>
> Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of<br>
> those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small<br>
> fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the<br>
> cart before the horse.<br>
><br>
> Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a<br>
> field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go<br>
> unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept<br>
> button.<br>
</div></div> > Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:<a href="mailto:dermotm@gmail.com">dermotm@gmail.com</a>"><a href="mailto:dermotm@gmail.com">dermotm@gmail.com</a></a>></span> wrote:<br><br>
> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees <<a href="mailto:<a href="mailto:ian.dees@gmail.com">ian.dees@gmail.com</a>"><a href="mailto:ian.dees@gmail.com">ian.dees@gmail.com</a></a>> wrote:<br><br>
><br>
> <br><br>
> > Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be "No", but in<br><br>
> > the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll<br><br>
> > eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my question was everyone<br><br>
> > else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?<br><br>
> <br><br>
> </div>FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but<br><br>
> it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can<br><br>
> see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted<br><br>
> about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained<br><br>
> throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.<br><br>
> Turns out this stuff is complicated.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued.</div><br>
> <div><br></div><div>Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse.</div><br>
> <div><br></div><div>Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button.</div><br>
> </div><br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"> > _______________________________________________<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>
_______________________________________________<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Graham Jones<div>Hartlepool, UK.</div><br>
</div>