[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new dataLicence regime

Tom Chance tom at acrewoods.net
Mon Feb 4 18:22:30 GMT 2008


Hello,

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:47:44 +0000, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2008, at 13:46, David Earl wrote:
>>>> how do we avoid the situation where e.g. someone who disagrees the
>>>> new license has run a bot over all of Cambridge to tweak things
>>>> (as has indeed
>>>> happened to many of the ways) or who has 'tidied up' bits of my
>>>> mapping so all my surveying is now labelled with their name. Does
>>>> all of my mapping of Cambridge get deleted because someone has
>>>> later modified my work in a trivial way? (Conversely, can I just
>>>> select a big area, and add a new tag to transfer the data to my
>>>> name and cause someone who doesn't agree the new license to be
>>>> retained?)
>>>
>>> It would have to be a clean chain of all editors agreeing, and the
>>> last timewise editor to disagree is the edit (and those thereafter)
>>> that would be thrown away.
>>
>> This sounds like a nightmare: I could lose weeks of work because
>> someone who fails to reply played with Potlatch once for a few
>> minutes and then vanished.
> 
> You have a better idea? :-)

No, but it's a bit scary without having any good idea of the number of
people who won't respond. Here are two possibly rubbish ideas:

- Do a special render of the planet indicating the density of users, e.g.
deep red means lots of different people have been editing an area. This
would at least give people an idea of how "complex" their data is;

- Do a trial email shot asking every user to confirm that they will
consider the issue, or some such thing, to get an idea of the response
rate;

What is the suggested time between the email and the delete steps, by the
by? You obviously need a deadline but I'd need a good pub trip to calm me
down if I found out all my data is wiped, I start fixing it and then a week
or two later the key person finally responds so wasting all my effort ;-)

Kind regards,
Tom





More information about the legal-talk mailing list