[OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

James Livingston wrote:
>     I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with
>     a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another
>     set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the
>     CT, there's no reason to prefer the former.
> 
> Being more accurate (traced from high quality imagery, versus GPS) could 
> be a reason to prefer the former.

That's correct (that it could be a reason) however I personally could 
prefer future-proof data over accurate data any time. I'd rather have a 
road that may be drawn a few meters from where it really is, than a nice 
and precise road that might be gone tomorrow.

> I'm not certain about how the person in question would take this, but 
> you'd want to be careful not to get into edit wars about this. The 
> original person could quite easily put their more accurate ways back, 
> and copy the names from the newer ones (since they can be CC licensed).

Yes, that is currently the case; however I was trying to think ahead to 
"phase 4" which we're likely to enter in a few weeks, and in that phase, 
the person in question would not be able to add anything unless they 
have agreed to the Contributor Terms.

> Do we want to encourage people to delete perfectly good data because 
> they don't like the licence?

Deleting perfectly good data because we don't like the license is 
*exactly* what OSMF are going to do when the license change is 
implemented, only that they will not be able to replace it with other 
perfectly good data immediately. On the other hand, when users do that 
*before* it comes to phase 5, they have the chance to replace the data. 
This seems the preferable option because it allows a smooth and (at 
least superficially) loss-less transition to phase 5.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"