[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

Kai Krueger kakrueger at gmail.com
Tue Jul 13 17:18:26 BST 2010



Andy Allan wrote:
> 
> Oh really? They are refusing to give any vague indication? That's news to
> me.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
> 
> Seems pretty detailed to me.
> 

Ok, I'll quote from that document those section that are relevant to the
question at hand:

Phase 3: "License Working Group meeting. Assessment of number of Decline
responses and number of people who haven't said either way." 

Pase4: "subject to critical mass"

I don't see a definition (or an attempt of one, or an order of magnitude
suggestion) of critical mass in that document (or any of the others). So how
is this detailed with respect to this point? If anyone can point me to
something concrete of what is or is not acceptable for a changeover
criterion, I'd be more than happy.

Your own, and other responses to this thread however again have shown, that
this process appears to be defined no further than "lets see what happens
and then once we have the results, this criterion will present it self". It
won't! It will still be an n-dimensional decision and be no easier to
define, other than that you can change the criteria to make sure the result
you want emerges at the end rather than based on rational arguments as you
can now.   


Andy Allan wrote:
> 
> Honestly, if we want to have a constructive debate, let's save the FUD
> and instead approach the issue sensibly. The LWG and the OSMF are some
> of the most respected people in the entire project, who have been
> working for literally *years* now on getting the best possible result
> for the project. Spreading rumours and attacking them isn't helping.
> 

I am fully aware of that (and have indeed stated that in several of my
emails that I fully respect them and their work and think they are doing a
great job!). So perhaps I should should make clearer why I want this
information. I want to be able to stand up in the forums, the mailinglist
threads, in the diary entries or where ever else the flames might appear and
currently are appearing to try and convince people that the change to OdBL
is necessary and will change little for them, so no need for fear and that
the OSMF is not evil. However with respect to  the two currently imho most
controversial points that keep on coming up i.e. critical mass and data loss 
and the contributor terms, that allow PD thus ruling out most current
imports and thus potentially all subsequent manual work derived off it, I
don't feel I have anything other to say than "trust OSMF, they have the best
of the project at hart." And a debate where that is the main argument feels
rather unsatisfactory to me when trying to defend something! Of cause, in
the end it will unfortunately boil down to trust, as (arbitrary number) 99%
of all OSM contributors aren't international IP lawyers and can't assess the
situation fully for them selves, but at least we can try and reduce the need
for trust (and at the same time build this trust) by e.g. defining some
minimum limits. Thats all I am asking for.

These are the two most important points, as the other points regarding OdBL
it self I think do have enough rational arguments to defend them and thus
with the hard work of everyone, people are starting to accept the necessity.  


Andy Allan wrote:
> 
> If you need some more information, or you think something isn't clear,
> or if you find something that you want more information on, or if you
> want to offer to help, then let's keep it constructive and positive.
> 

That is exactly what I am hoping this thread to be about. The additional
information of how it is decided, by whom, with what majority and based on
what criteria, if the licensing change can go ahead or not. I want this
information in order to ensure that that the change can go through
successfully.

And I think this thread alone has already shown (together with previous
discussions) that there is a need for this discussion. E.g. Frederik said
(paraphrased and exaggerated) it is about the data, not the contributors,
then Richard comes and sais nearly the exact opposite (see the statements on
talk-au for more details). So we aren't talking about 89.95% vs 89.96%, or
other fine details, but about fundamental discrepancies of how this
"critical mass" will be defined!

Kai
-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5288271.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.




More information about the legal-talk mailing list