[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

[Dave F.]

  On 03/10/2010 14:12, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 10/02/2010 12:18 AM, Dave F. wrote:
>>
>> Broadcasting the fact you think a contributor, who disagrees with you,
>> should be banned purely because they have a nickname is:
>>
>> petty/puerile/childish/insecure/inept/pompous/arrogant
>
> That is not the argument.
>
> The argument is that various people on this list are *using* anonymity 
> as cover for arguing in bad faith in order to be disruptive.
>
> Anonymity isn't a problem. Anonymous trolling is.

Going on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

It's disappointing that I have to conclude that it's Steve Coast that 
fits this description most closely.


>
>
>> I can't make an informed decision about which way I should go until I
>> have concrete evidence about what will happen with the data, in all it's
>> forms, that I have added.
>
> Data that you are unable or unwilling to relicence will be removed.
>
> OSM has ongoing contact with the OS and hopefully a solution can be 
> found to traced data inclusion.

Again, a statement with caveats included.
Shouldn't this have been worked out *before* expecting users to 
accept/decline?

The OSMF/LWG have put together a series of regulations of which they 
have no clue how they interact with the outside world.

>
> If you agree to the CTs at this point, the worst thing that will 
> happen is that your data cannot be used by OSM.

Err... Did you mean to write that?


Dave F.