[Legal-general] question re. OSMF's attitude to hosting alternative licence servers

[TimSC]

On 29/07/10 15:05, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> El día Thursday 29 July 2010 15:14:22, TimSC dijo:
>    
>> You seem to be implying that we need a significant number of users to
>> make this worth while.
>>      
> No, I'm not.
>    
So what are you implying? I am not a mind reader! I say having a 
significant number of users is irrelevant to deciding for or against a 
fork. I say as long as we have a non-zero number of regular 
contributors, it would be valuable.

>>
>> This is actually the main objection I expected from OSMF. There is a
>> real risk it would make things more confusing for users, if we handle
>> this poorly.
>>      
> No. Things will be more confusing for users, PERIOD.
How specifically will adding another database server confuse users to 
any significant degree, particularly if it is only publicised on this 
mailing list and in other low key ways? Your argument that it is 
"obvious" is not convincing me. Since significant user confusion is not 
likely, your main objection falls.

>> But I am not proposing "equal billing" for an SA and PD license. Or even
>> equal support.
>>      
> OSMF ends up confusing people and looking like
> it doesn't have a strategy, PD people end up looking like they use the
> leftovers.
>    
I addressed user confusion above.

Didn't you notice my point about OSMF not trying to control OSM? And 
perhaps you should be more concerned with the OSM community, rather than 
people's perceptions of OSMF? Your point seems conflict with the stated 
supporting role of OSMF, as expressed on the front page of OSMF's wiki. 
Since when has there been one way, and only one way, to do something in OSM?

>> Given there is actually significant interest in PD, based on the doodle
>> poll, [...]
>>      
> I'll just play the "skewed poll" card and ignore the argument.
>    
Are you saying there isn't support for PD, or just you don't know the 
level of support? Perhaps you should try to find that out, before 
deciding SA is the way forward? You seem to have stopped pretending that 
OSMF listens to the mapping community or perhaps pleading ignorance 
(which is verging on negligent), which I hope is not your intention. 
Based on the doodle poll, the wiki page [1] with of users submitting to 
PD and the OSMF relicensing poll, we can conclude there is significant 
interest in PD. My point stands (that SA doesn't represent the entire 
user base's interests and OSMF should be more responsive to us).

[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain

Side node: if you claim the doodle poll is erroneous, it undermines the 
LWG's claim that they have quantified the level of support for 
relicensing. Perhaps you better sort that out?

>> it doesn't follow that OSMF should limit the alternatives, particularly
>> against the wishes of the OSM community.
>>      
> See, on one hand, OSMF is a democratically run entity. If the community wants
> the OSMF to steer in some direction, people wanting so will step up for the
> board.
Your idea of democracy seems to be different from the usual concept of 
"majority rule". In most democracies, the elected representatives don't 
act as tyrants until replaced (which is basically your implication). 
Also, I didn't vote in the OSMF election and I don't have much interest 
in running. Remember your mandate only comes from OSMF members, not from 
the contributors generally. Last time I heard, democratic legitimacy 
comes from consent of the governed. You seem to have ignored the whole 
point of OSMF being a supporting organization to OSM. Your main 
objections all come from your perception that OSMF controls the OSM 
community. You should aspire to the reverse, being a "democratically run 
entity". In conclusion, arguments from OSMF that are along the lines of 
"it's bad for the project" but flying in the face of a significant 
faction of the contributors are un-democratic.

>> One issue that has not been raised is what is the future of the license
>> beyond ODbL v1?
>>      
> ODbL v2, obviously. And ODbL v3 after that.
>    
Not necessarily. Unless you can back that up with some evidence? Your 
point might also be meaningful if you could predict what was in those 
licenses, but I guess you can't.

>> I am also anticipating SteveC entering this discussion.
>>      
> SteveC has much better things to do right now.
>    
I think we should leave that up to SteveC. Unless you asked him? Without 
that, I'd say you were rather presumptuous.

>> I wonder if anything can be added to [the license, the database and a way
>> to edit it] without his support.
>>      
> WTF?
>    
Are you saying changes you mentioned happened without Steve's support 
(particularly the API and license changes)? Of course not! They were all 
supported by Steve, usually very closely (API 0.6 probably the least, 
but it still had his support). So my point stands: license changes, API 
changes all have Steve's involvement and support, usually very close. 
And the general editing paradigm has not changed since he established it 
(RESTful). My point stands.

> Now, seriously, step back from your e-mail client, and just frakking do stuff.
> Empty talk is just empty talk.
>    
This is a classic strategy to end discussion. If you sincerely believed 
this, I suggest you stay of the mailing lists. If you want to be a 
proponent of "live and let live" and "just do stuff", you would say "PD 
is none of my concern" and at least not oppose my proposal. But no, you 
don't just "do" what ever it is YOU do, you find time to object to stuff 
on the mailing list. So should can I approach the sysadmins to "do" a PD 
fork with OSMF at least being tolerant of this activity? (This is 
slightly an ad hominem tu quoque, so feel free to ignore.)

It's not like I am just sitting here causing trouble on the mailing 
lists (well it's just one of the things I do). Last time I checked, I 
was the largest single contributor of nodes and ways in the UK! So, 
sorry for not standing for OSMF and not attending meetings, I'm too busy 
mapping. I think that also entitles me to some civility from OSMF board 
members, but perhaps I am wrong in that assumption?

I also observe that you failed to back up your claim at OSM is short on 
hardware/cash and that lack of contributor interest would be a problem. 
(Although Nic Roets commented on it elsewhere.) Any further information 
on that?

So given that the hardware requirements are modest, that we can ensure 
users from becoming confused, that an exclusive SA approach is not 
necessary.... the main problem seems to be lack of sysadmin resources. 
Iván, I think I covered all your points and refuted them?

Regards,

TimSC