[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

Gerhard Peter gerhard.peter at free.fr
Wed Dec 2 00:22:42 UTC 2009

I not am ok, pardon me.
Something basically is wrong with changeing licence on "our" side.
We must keep our promises.

Or make a new one, but don't call it OSM nor OSMF.

Contributors which for one reason or another could not or would not  
sign the "new licence"
extended by the "contributor terms", the "implementation proces",
and the "liability terms" (unknown, yet ?),
they simply get lost, them and their data ?

Have us sign, and impose such onto them ?
Just for example :
	What will become of the data of those who stopped to participate, us  
unable to join them ?
	Of data of those who died, since ?
Be honest, not keep it ?
Play God, presume that they are ok, keep their data ?
Change the last decimal behind the comma, pretend "composed" or such,  
steal it ?

Where goes "Who owns OSM ? You !"  ?
	The one who decides, in fact IS proprietor.

Also throw away the words which say that OSMF wont' interfere whith  
how OSM works,
"not controlling the project",
"role is to support the project, not to control it",
and such.
Don't have us lie to the contributors out there, don't have us double- 
	This licence project WILL change OSM and how it works.

"perpetual, irrevocable copyright license"
seems immoral, to me.

Keeping the actual database in a drawer does not make things any  
that *not* was what for Contributors engaged into OSM.

The question not is, what to put into new licence.
The question is,
not to change licence without them Contibutors out there.

If OSMF wanted to keep clean, we ought to apply (I copy) :

"An "active contributor" is defined as:
• a contributor that has edited the map in any 3 calendar months from  
the last 6
months(i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and
• has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile  
and responds within
3 weeks "

and give them right to vote, *before* voting change of licence.
Not afterwards.
And, 3 weeks is too short. Think of summer hollidays.

Have us stay honest, please.
Sincerely Yours,
Gerhard Ditsch

what am I worrying about ? one could say,
I just got to get out.

Le 27 nov. 09 à 17:10, Mike Collinson a écrit :

> Hi Frederik,
> In addition to an update I've just sent to this list, I also want to  
> respond to your issue of the vote wording so that the issue is  
> adequately discussed.
> At 09:36 PM 16/10/2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Mike Collinson wrote:
>>> The formal license change proposal will be sent to you very  
>>> shortly, so the License Working Group has been working on the  
>>> exact text of the vote itself and covering letter.  If interested,  
>>> you can see it here:
>> [...]
>>> In order to give members with differing views on what makes the  
>>> ideal license, the maximum chance to make their views felt, there  
>>> will also be a short optional survey included with the vote.
>> This is the letter you are sending out to OSMF members, not the  
>> question that will be put to all contributors, right? Looks ok so  
>> far with me, and a plus for the planned survey.
> Now the letter has gone out I hope the general context is clearer. (http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf 
> )
>> However, for the question that will ultimately be put to all  
>> contributors, I sincerely wish that contributors will have three  
>> options, like
>> ( ) I release my data under ODbL
>> ( ) I do not release my data under ODbL
>> ( ) I consider all my data PD anyway and don't claim database  
>> protection so do whatever you want
>> I had talked to a number of LWG members at SOTM and found them at  
>> least not rejecting this idea altogether; the plan being to allow  
>> those who don't care for viral licensing to at least be heard. That  
>> would be more than a "short optional survey". I would expect these  
>> responses in the user data we keep on the server, thus formalising  
>> the current "all my contributions are PD" scheme we have on the Wiki.
> We had a very, very long discussion about this and looked at many  
> options. We finally concluded that unless the basic OSMF member vote  
> itself was a simple yes/no, there are simply too many shades of  
> opinion to get a question/answer wording that is not loaded (i.e.  
> potentially biased) and that everyone could be happy with.
> Having a simple neutral question/answer and creating a rather longer  
> survey seems a better option for getting a clear result on whether  
> to go ahead with the new license AND for allowing us all to make our  
> personal opinions quantitatively recorded. Full results of the  
> survey (except for personal identification) will be published as  
> public record, so available for analysis by all parties of whatever  
> school of thought and can be used as an informed basis for future  
> direction..
> Mike
> License Working Group
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list