[josm-dev] License change plugin

[Stephan Knauss]

On 07.07.2011 23:16, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> * All versions of an element are clean, so the whole element is
>> considered clean (green).
> I think that "clean" elements should not be marked at all. Clean is the
> default; no action is required on a clean element.
Yes, in some areas this is already the default. You are right, no 
special coloring needed.

>> * All versions from declined users, element is red.
> Declined or undecided.
For the undecided there is still hope. About 100 user agree each day.
http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html

Could it be configurable how to treat undecided? A checkbox or expert 
setting to control "treat undecided as declined"?

> Well: If v1 of an object is done by someone who has agreed to ODbL, then
> it is absoultely sure that *something* of this object will remain. If v1
> of an object is done by someone who has not agreed, then it is *not*
> sure that something will remain. Don't you think that it makes sense to
> distinguish these cases?
I'm not that sure something remains or should remain. In case v2 is a 
deletion, should that be restored?
If v1 was completely wrong and v2 fixed it, do we really want some 
outdated version back? Is this really better?
I personally know mappers who prefer to remap a "landsat road" based on 
GPS tracks or aerials by completely drawing new nodes instead of moving 
hundreds of misplaced nodes.
It sounds easier to start from scratch in these areas (I'm referring to 
roads in a country in southeast-asia. Could be different in downtown 
Berlin).

So the decision of OSMF could be to delete unsafe data completely from 
the ODbL and to provide some sort of overlay for manually restoring 
dual-licensed data that is mixed with non-compatible data.

That's why I would not distinguish these cases. Say there is data loss. 
Mappers might want to replace the affected data by clearly safe data.

Stephan