[OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Heiko Jacobs wrote:
> I searched without success in the Wiki
> who official decided, when and *WHY* they decided, that data of
> contributors, who not (can) accept the ODbl, has to be removed.

The formal decision for OSMF to go on with the ODbL relicensing process 
was the result of a vote among OSMF members.

This vote began on 5th December 2009, and the results were announced on 
27 December 2009. 89% of those who voted approved the process that had 
been suggested by the License Working Group.

Here is the E-Mail that formed the basis of the vote:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan/OSMF_Vote_Email

The final proposal linked from that E-Mail was:

http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf

That again referenced the implementation plan at

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan

Which, under the "What do we do with people who have said no or not 
responded" sentence that you quoted, linked to

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan

which details the procedure, and I'm quoting that part of the wiki page 
in full:

> These are the proposed stages of the migration process, subject to change based on technical or policy feasibility. This is not the final plan, and may change as we figure out the best way to do it, but this is the general outline. A date will be announced for this in advance based on the Implementation Plan.
> 
>    1. Database is taken to read-only mode.
>    2. A dump of all geographic data, most likely full-history planet, is made available under CC BY-SA. This will be hosted on [1] and mirrors and we will try to keep it available for as long as is practical.
>    3. Each element is examined and only those with an unbroken history chain from version 1 to the most recent ODbL'ed version are marked as "OK".
>    4. The database will be taken to offline mode.
>    5. Elements and versions not marked "OK" are hidden somehow.
>    6. A "fixup" script will be run to fix errors introduced by such hiding and restore referential integrity.
>    7. The database will be taken to read-only mode.
>    8. Dump first ODbL planet, possibly both a full-history and current. Since the API will be read-only for the duration, this should correspond exactly to the final CC BY-SA planet dumped in step 2.
>    9. Database is taken to read-write mode. 
> 
> At no point in the process will we delete data which hasn't been made available.

> Outstanding questions

> Getting edits 'back'
> 
> There is a technical question about how to remove non-ODbL contributions from the database. The following methods are under consideration:
> 
>     * Mark the edits in the database as "hidden", but do not remove the records. This means changing the API code to allow edits to be recovered after the migration by the user's agreement to the contributor terms, which creates difficulties when the element history was partially recovered and "forked" subsequently by other ODbL edits. This is the most technically challenging method.
>     * Remove the records from the database, but supply the latest versions (per-user) to be downloaded by the user and re-merged manually into the database using an editor. This puts a lot of work onto the user, who may decide not to merge their old edits back in.
>     * Remove the records from the database and rely on the full-history dump to provide those element histories to any editor interested in recovering them. This may be the most practical method. 

So this is what OSMF members have voted on (I have taken care to 
retrieve those versions of the pages that were in effect when the vote 
was held but it didn't make a difference.)

It is pretty clear from that that non-ODbL contributions would either be 
marked "hidden" and thus inaccessible in the database, or removed from 
it (while of course not being removed from the last CC-BY-SA version 
published).

While the proposal and plan have been drafted by the LWG before that 
date, and certainly have been the result of some discussion, the formal 
*decision* to proceed along the proposed lines was taken by the OSMF 
membership in that vote.

(The OSMF board decision to hold the vote is in the board meeting 
minutes of 12th November, here: 
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_24fks9cpdq.)

Bye
Frederik