[OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Frederik Ramm]

Liz,

> Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you consider 
> it, of course you think it is quite short.

80n first mentioned this deadline on 14th July, i.e. at the time that 
was six weeks.

It was unclear to me what exactly the deadline was about; he wrote "if 
there isn't a clear majority by September 1st then I'd say the 
relicensing has failed" but a majority of whom, in what question?

Did anybody - you, 80n, anybody? - think that we'd somehow, in these six 
weeks, be able to email every contributor, and ask them to relicense 
their content, chase up those that don't answer, and consolidate the 
results? - Personally I didn't even think about that deadline becasue it 
seemed quite absurd.

Plus, I don't know if we need any kind of deadline at all.

We can simply decide to re-license, then ask everyone to agree, then 
disallow contributions from people who haven't agreed. All the time, the 
planet is still under CC-BY-SA. Then we evaluate the losses. Say we find 
that 20% of data has not been relicensed. Ok, we start working on 
replacing that data, using the work of people who are ok with ODbL. 
After a while, only 10% of "old" data is still there. We continue, with 
the planet still under CC-BY-SA. After another while, we have brought 
down the losses to 1%, or 0.1%, or whatever. At that time we throw out 
the rest and publish the planet under ODbL.

Who cares if that time is one year in the future? If it helps to keep 
our losses to a minimum - why not.

As you know we have many people who don't fear the license change, but 
they fear data loss incurred by people not agreeing. In theory, the LWG 
could even set an arbitrary limit (e.g. "we promise not to re-license 
the planet until global data loss is less than x%"). That should then 
bring all those people on board who fear data loss. Then we just carry 
on as I described above, slowly eliminating the "old" data by replacing 
it with re-surveyed "new" data until we achieve what we want.

Just a thought. Not necessarily bright. Might have its problems, might 
also work.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"