[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing

[John Smith]

On 2 September 2010 05:14, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>    there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find
> something inappropriate.

I've made several comments that you do like wise, you keep claiming
this change is needed to make OSM more free, but that's dishonest
because it will only make *END USERS* more free, but you continue you
leave those words from your statement.

> is just unsuitable for a "debate" (your word) between grown-ups. It is 100%
> rhetorics and 0% content. Reading statements like these is a waste of time.

Oh that's even funnier when you later claim I take things out of
context, it seems everything you acuse me of you end up just as guilty
as committing the same crime.

> As for debate, your point has been made and understood:

So why do you continually take me out of context and claim I'm against
the license if you have understood my point?

> * You are against CT clause 3 or, depending on the situation, against the
> new license altogether (being under the impression that CC-BY-SA is good
> enough in Australia).

See there you go again...

> For all I know, you joined OSM when the license change process was already
> well under way [1][2], so it really is a mystery to me how you could
> completely overlook that when you did your tracing and importing.

I can't seem to find your links... So it's a mystery to me as well...
Also you continuously seem to avoid Anthony's question about why you
changed your stance on the ODBL...

> My personal impression is that you have an XXL problem with admitting
> mistakes. You cannot bear to admit to yourself, and to those who may have
> congratulated you on your tracing and imports, that there is a license
> problem now which was forseeable, but not foreseen by you, when you did it.

Just because there is a problem it doesn't mean the current solution
is a good one, in fact I doubt I'd get a valid answer to that either
since you and others have invested so much time and effort you
wouldn't admit your own mistakes.

> So you're looking for someone else to take the blame, and that's essentially
> all we're seeing here. You cannot admit a mistake, so the others must be
> doing things wrong.

For someone that claims to want to debate license issues you turned
this into a personal attack pretty quickly.

I don't want to blame anyone, I just don't like the current solution
and you seem unwilling to compromise at all.

> I also have the impression that you have an XXL problem with competition.
> You're trying to make a "win or lose" situation out of something that wasn't
> one, and then (publicly, loudly) fight to "win". This is a trait commonly
> found in 15 year old males of our species, and it is really very unhelpful.

I see Dr Frederik, and what is your hourly psychotherapy rate exactly?
You seem to need some of your own medicine at this point in time.

> JohnSmith, you may have contributed a lot of data, but that data comes at a
> very high price for our community, which is having to put up with your
> arrogance and general disruptive behaviour.

You have a hide, you claim I'm the arrogant one, when you have very
very loudly proclaimed to know what's best for the project, without
even asking most current contributors.

>> So you condone the actions of people committing character
>> assassinations, muck rack, abuse of statistics to achieve set outcomes
>> and all the rest of it?
>
> I'm sad that in addition to having to put up with your messages and your
> endless scorn, I now have to read "80 m" and "Jane Smith" as well, and I
> think they're rather childish. I don't condone these actions but someone who
> throws as much shit at a community as you do should not be surprised to see
> some of it flung back.

So 2 wrongs make a right now?

But of course you don't like it when you get asked inconvenient
questions and instead of addressing those you go into a personal rant.

> Neither have I, but I won't debate them with a paranoid individual like you
> who is likely to take an argument, rip it out of context, and put it a
> screaming subject line on talk with my name attached to it.

You took things I said in your email out of context several times, but
that seems to be something you do often already.

> I passionately disagree with 80n over relicensing but at least I have the
> impression that he is fighting for a principle, and I respect that. You,
> JohnSmith, are fighting for yourself, your data, and your applause from your
> audience.

So what about Anthony's question(s)?

You don't seem to want to debate anything, you have a point of view
and that's the only one that matters.