[josm-dev] License change plugin

[Stephan Knauss]

Hi Frederik,

On 02.07.2011 16:12, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> The tool is doing background data requests. It should provide some
>> feedback to the user regarding this.
> It shouldn't be doing background data requests, only send a request when
> you explicitly ask for it.
Yes, but then the request is running asynchronous in the background. 
There is no visible user feedback the request is still running. If your 
server has problems and is not responding for five minutes the thread 
will still be stuck. You could change the "license check" button to 
indicate a running request.

>> The doCheck() in BasicLicenseCheck is in my opinion not right
>> regarding nodes that have no tags. As all information these nodes
>> carry is their existence and coordinates I see no reason why any other
>> status than the one of the last editor of that node could be relevant.
>
> I don't think this is something for the plugin to decide.
>
>> A change in the coordinate could be expressed as a deletion and
>> recreation at a new position. The copyright (in case there exists one
>> on node level) would be solely on the last editor.
>
> Any change of an object could be expressed as a deletion and recreation
> but that doesn't mean that the recreation has happened without looking
> at the old object. (For example, I could make a roundabout "rounder"
> without actually adding any data of my own.)
>
>> I have changed the check to do this. I would like to discuss it before
>> submitting my changes. Actually the doCheck() might need some more
>> improvements.
>
> I'm happy for anyone to make improvements, but please don't add your
> personal interpretation of the licensing situation. If you can get
> OSMF/LWG to say clearly that they will not remove a node that has been
> created by someone who says no to ODbL and moved by someone else later,
> then ok; but as long as such a statement does not exists, we must assume
> that the node is going to be deleted.

I quote the full paragraph so we have the context.
Currently your plugin is doing license interpretation as well. Your 
personal interpretation seams to be that if a node was created by a user 
declining the CT it must be deleted. Even if it does not contain any 
tags and is later moved. You rate it as Severity.DATA_LOSS.

So in case the plugin wants to display a neutral view without 
interpretation it must tag these nodes as Severity.POSSIBLE_DATA_LOSS.
The only valid reason for DATA_LOSS would be if all involved users had 
declined. The remaining mixed cases depend on the interpretation what 
data needs to be removed.

Stephan