[OSM-legal-talk] [Rebuild] Too many things to do before a license change

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.02.2012 22:28, schrieb FK270673 at fantasymail.de:
> Only six weeks are left before the scheduled license change on April 1st. There are still too many open issues:
> - checking imports (e.g. h4ck3rm1k3) which is rather an administrative than a political issue
That I believe, is work in progress (in the case of h4ck3rm1k3 at least) .
> - only 80% of worldwide mappers have agreed so far, despite a tremendous mailing effort
"only", well that is a matter of perspective (besides that it is 
actually just over 50%). However in any case there is only a handful of 
mappers left that have significant contributions that haven't responded 
to date, for how the LWG proposes to handle them see the LWG minutes.
> - checking invalid e-mails?
> - sending paper letters to ~200 non-responding real-name mappers?
Same topic as above.

> - enabling self adoption of anonymous edits and second accounts?
Anonymous mappers have always been able to agree to the CTs and have 
actually done so, non-existent problem. Mappers that have issues 
accessing "secondary" accounts should talk to the sys admins (as they 
have been doing up to now).
> - How to deal with group accounts like mapping parties or schools with multiple authors?
> - How to deal with guest and test accounts?
> - How to deal with short-time mappers who did not reach the level of database protection?
> - How to deal with low-quality first-time mappers whose contributions can easily be removed?

Their contributions get removed if they don't accept the CTs.

> - How to deal with armchair mappers who (are supposed to) have copied from official maps?

What does that have to do with the licence change? Nothing. If they are 
kind enough not to accept the CTs their data gets deleted, if they have 
accepted the CTs and you can't revert their edits, you talk to the DWG.
> - How to deal with deceased mappers?

If somebody turns up with enough documentation to show that the heirs 
want to leave the data in OSM, I would think we would actually do that.
> - How to deal with forks that are ODbL-compatible, e.g. Commonmap?
Any data that is compatible with Commonmap (clearly not a fork btw) 
could potentially be a candidate for OSM with a corresponding OK for our 
attribution via the website. However at least I want -less-, not more 
imports and welcome the offering of Commonmap as a round folder for 
people infected with importmania.
>
> - How to deal with split ways?
See LWG minutes.
>
> - How to replace ways that have been manufactured by decliners or non-responders and later modified by active mappers? In some cases, the current ownership attribution of split ways is simply fraud.
If somebody has been vandalizing the map, obviously you take the normal 
route for getting it undone.

See it took 5 minutes to deal with all the issues :-)

Simon