[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal

Jonathan Harley jon at spiffymap.net
Tue Jan 31 10:15:39 GMT 2012

On 30/01/12 23:41, LM_1 wrote:
> That said there are other ways to ensure the goal of this suggestion -
> seamless transition rather than deletions and angry/leaving
> contributors.
> One that comes to my mind and does not require any drastic changes
> would utilise filtering feature of JOSM (and required Potlatch to
> implement equivalent). Every night/week (depending on how demanding
> task it would be) each incompatible object would be tagged
> odbl=incompatible (server side). Editors would then make these objects
> non-editable/less visible...
> If API is not changed to serve the cleaned version of data, it would
> be good to have at least some editor-side tool to revert selected
> object to the clean state and then repair/edit it as it should be.
> In my original suggestion I said that this period (remapping what has
> to be deleted while still serving data under CC-BY-SA) should take a
> year or two - as long as needed till all the field in
> http://odbl.poole.ch/ show 99% or more. The time pressure is a false
> one, there has not really been any argument why it is important to
> change the licence fast.

Non-CT-agreers can't make changes any more, right? So the tagging of 
objects odbl=incompatible would only need to be done once; the number 
can never go up, only down as editors replace those features. The tag 
would be visible in editors without any change (but would make it easy 
for editors to highlight those features and/or warn any user editing 
them) and it would make it crystal clear to all of us which features 
would be removed for the ODbL version when it arrives. That seems like a 
pretty good idea to me.

We're coming up towards the 5 year mark on this so nobody can accuse us 
of moving too fast. Personally I'm feeling demotivated knowing that lots 
of my work is likely to be removed (although I've mapped other places 
from scratch, most of my edits around here have been corrections and 
improvements) and I haven't added anything for months. I know more 
clarity about exactly what's going to happen to the map would help me.

I know we're still hoping that some CT refusers will change their minds, 
but I think we need a definitive decision at some point about exactly 
what is going to be done to which features - and that point needs to be 
BEFORE the license change is implemented - preferably well before. 
Tagging seems the obvious way to communicate that.


Dr Jonathan Harley   :    Managing Director    :   SpiffyMap Ltd

md at spiffymap.com      Phone: 0845 313 8457     www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK

More information about the legal-talk mailing list