[OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Mon Aug 9 23:22:33 BST 2010


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:11 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 9, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Anthony wrote:
> >> If that was you back then: Why should you request OSMF to "properly
> remove
> >> all of your work" when at the same time you "have no problem with OSM
> using
> >> my contributions in any way whatsoever"?
> >
> > IIRC, SteveC convinced me that my work should be sharealike a short
> > time after I wrote that.  Also I read numerous arguments which
> > convinced me that OSM is not just a factual database.  That was, I
> > believe, one of my first posts to the list about the matter, and
> > certainly before I realized what a bumbling mess this whole process
> > was.
>
> It's not a bumbling mess.
>
> What's happening is very simple: The people on the LWG are too nice.
>
> Every time someone comes up with either a issue with either the process or
> license, the LWG take time to address it.
>
> I would estimate about 70 or 80% of these things are either bonkers, FUD or
> restatements of previous bonkers/FUD things.
>
> Given that the LWG are all volunteers and meet once a week and there have
> been hundreds of these emails, rants and people on the call, that means they
> literally spend years at this point dealing with this stuff.
>
> Thus, it slows everything down.
>
> Oh and this and other threads going on right now are good examples. It's
> explicitly slowing down and complicating the process, which is probably the
> aim of several of the people here.
>

I completely agree.  I've been pushing for this whole thing to be wrapped up
as quickly as possible.  The longer it drags on the more damage there is to
the community and the project.  It's a pity you have no involvement with the
LWG Steve, I'm sure you'd be get them to focus on the need to bring this
bumbling mess to a rapid conclusion.

Referring back to a previous thread about the need for a community vote.
There seems to be a view by the authors of the Contributor Terms that a
license change would be legitimate if 2/3rds of active contributors voted
for it within a 3 week window.  Looks to me like you could have it all done
and dusted in a little more than three weeks from now, which would be, um,
September 1st.

Go on, you haven't got the guts to call a vote.

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100809/bcd917ce/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list