[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Kai Krueger
kakrueger at gmail.com
Tue Jul 13 19:49:38 BST 2010
Richard Weait wrote:
>
> I believe you are referring to my assertion that community is more
> important than data. I said:
>
Indeed I was
Richard Weait wrote:
>
> "My vision of OpenStreetMap sees the community, the contributors, as
> very important; probably twice as important as the data, but perhaps
> an order of magnitude more important."
>
>
> I hope that was clearly my opinion, not policy of $anybody.
>
Yes, it was clear that it was currently your opinion alone. But given that
you are a member of the LWG, it is not an entirely meaningless opinion.
Also, that it was your opinion, rather than that of the LWG is exactly what
I wanted to point out, i.e. that there is no consensus on this point within
the LWG (that you could have referred to in addition to your own opinion)
and it is thus at the moment unclear as to how this decision in the end gets
made.
Richard Weait wrote:
>
> Kai, I don't mean to ignore the rest of your questions. I'd like
> certainty too. Should the LWG back itself into a corner by saying x%,
> y%, then ask forgiveness if the percentages look good but $region is
> blanked?
>
No, I very much appreciate that you are engaging in a debate as to what
might be the relevant aspects of this decision. And this kind of
argumentation was what I was looking for when originally posing this
question. So thank you for that.
Never the less, for the moment, I won't answer to the content of your
suggestions, as this thread has become to much of a "meta discussion" i.e.
the question of if we should discuss this point or not. But if you and
others are willing to engage in this discussion, I would be happy to play my
(small) part in helping coming up with some sensible criteria in a separate
thread.
Just to one aspect (as that is somewhat part of the meta discussion)
"Should the LWG back itself into a corner by": You wouldn't be backing your
self into a corner if you set minimum requirements. You can still say "Well,
we have reached the minimum requirements, but it turns out that was not
enough" and abandon the change. What you can't however say is (in an
exaggerated form): "Well, we haven't reached the minimum requirements, but
we would otherwise have wasted 2 years of immensely hard work, so we will go
ahead anyway. People can fork the community after all if they are unhappy".
Having that assurance hopefully builds trust in the process. I really don't
want to see the community fractured and I honestly think that having
stringent, well thought out and communicated criterion during the time of
asking people will help reduce that risk.
Kai
--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5289086.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list