[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
flukas.robot+osm at gmail.com
Tue Jan 31 23:29:40 GMT 2012
Generally there should be less incompatible data every day, however
there still some imports of non-copyrightable (PD, government
licensed) that were uploaded by users who did not agree to CT. Because
of this the incompatibility test would have to be re-run periodically.
(and maybe if some problems with the script get reported). Editors
being free to edit is the main purpose of this. Small scale deleting
of incompatible data before edit makes re-mapping easier and prevents
problems with broken relations and other connections that could be a
burden in the database for years.
What is hurting the community with regard to licence change is the
uncertainty what data will be lost and if really as much as statistics
suggest. If every editor has an easy way to make sure his edits remain
undeleted, and that he can edit without risking that it is futile no
harm will be done.
As pointed out, if the armageddon is postponed, people stop caring
(maybe not once they started), that was the point of API rejecting
If the whole process of licence change takes so long, why should the
last phase (presumably most important one) - fixing what has to be
deleted - take so short.
Lukáš Matějka (LM_1)
2012/1/31 Jonathan Harley <jon at spiffymap.net>:
> 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
>> 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
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the legal-talk