[OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declinesornon-responses

[David Groom]

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Richard Weait" <richard at weait.com>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
> <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - 
> declinesornon-responses
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:14 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:44 PM, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> 1) Those who do not want to, or can not. agree to the CT's and make an
>>> decision not to accept the CT's.
>>> 2) Those previous mappers who are no longer active and so won't even 
>>> have
>>> made a choice between accepting or not.
>>>
>>> In the case of group (1) it seems wrong to me to disregard their wishes
>>> and just leave the data in.
>>
>> It would be equally wrong to disregard the wishes of those in case 2. 
>> Being
>> uncontactable is not a justification for abusing a person's rights.
>>
>> OSM used to be very respectful of other people's copyright. It used to be
>> one of the values that was held very highly. But now it seems to think 
>> that
>> it can just trample all over the rights of the people who built it.
>>
>> I'm ashamed that OSM is no longer the body that it once was. It has lost 
>> my
>> respect.
>
> I neglected to address those who don't respond either way in my
> earlier reply but I'd expect to treat their contributions with the
> same care as the decliners.
>
> 80n have you presumed I had malice where I only failed to address a
> sub-question?  Thanks.
>
> I don't see where David suggested anything that would deserve your
> ire, either.
>
> Even if you disagree with what either David or I said, you would paint
> the entire OSM project with your loss of respect and shame, rather
> than engaging in the discussion?  I'm not sure I see what it is that
> you are reacting to in such a visceral way.
>

Obviously I'm not wishing to speak for 80n, but one thing which gives me 
cause for concern is the following comment, which might imply that even if 
you haven't agreed to the CT's your data may still be left in OSM.

"There's also some stuff we can do and I'm not strictly sure of this, but 
below a certain threshold of the amount of data you have edited and also the 
type of data you have edited there's no creativity involved, so it's 
automatically in the public domain ....so we can automatically 'move you 
over'" [1].

Of course I may have misunderstood what Steve means.  And I do appreciate 
the comment was prefaced by "I'm not strictly sure of this", and also that 
at minute 30:11  Steve said "we're going to have to remove their data"

However when the Chairman of OSM appears to give contradictory comments 
about what will happen to the data of people who have not agreed the CT's it 
does at least give some cause for concern.

David

[1]  Steve Coast : Keynote speech to SOTM.US  at about minute 31:10. 
http://vimeo.com/channels/128913#14392616