[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Wed Dec 2 21:03:04 UTC 2009

On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Emilio Anzon wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:06:08PM -0800, SteveC wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Emilio Anzon wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:17:58AM -0800, SteveC wrote:
>>>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>>>> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>>>>> All the pain I expressed above could have been reduced a bit if you
>>>>>> could have been bothered to put the three-part question to the community
>>>>>> like I suggested:
>>>>>>>> ( ) 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
>>>>>> However, you believe that even this would overtax the average community
>>>>>> member.
>>>>> I strongly agree with Frederik on this one.
>>>>> In my opinion - and you may say that the Potlatch author is the last  
>>>>> person anyone should be asking about usability ;) - offering the third  
>>>>> option is a _big_ win for simplicity.
>>>>> Never mind the legal arguments; never mind GPL vs BSD; never mind  
>>>>> 49.9% or 90% or CC0 or any of that. In most mappers' eyes, the three  
>>>>> choices above mean:
>>>>>  [ ] Yes
>>>>>  [ ] No
>>>>>  [ ] Yes and please don't bother me again
>>>>> We tend to forget, here and on legal-talk, that by definition we are  
>>>>> the people who care about this deeply. Most people don't. Most people  
>>>>> just want to go mapping.
>>>>> Offering a PD option means "Whatever. I trust you guys. I just like  
>>>>> mapping. I really don't want to be bothered by any more e-mails about  
>>>>> relicensing."
>>>> That's what *you* think it means. I think it means "Whatever, be like FreeBSD and let's die as quickly as possible".
>>>> Yours &c.
>>> Hi,
>>> I think that *maybe" what he thinks could be shared by _many_ people...
>>> until you make a survey how can you know the answer ??
>> I think that *maybe* what I think could be shared by _many_ people....
> That was obvious :)
>> until you let the LWG actually do something, like I don't know... do the vote on the license maybe? Then how can I know the answer??
> don't you think that could be usefull to have a license on which there
> is common agreement *before* to vote ??

There already is common agreement. Don't mistake signal for noise. This has been a huge multi-year effort with buy in from the majority of people.

It would be exactly the same if we were going PD - there would be people shouting for copyleft, or whatever.

The point is to move on... we're stuck in this kafka-esque prison of doing nothing because of random emails, and I don't think the odd email from Frederik should be weighted the same amount as the years of effort and consensus building the LWG has done. Hence why I'm so heavily coming down on it and I think we should all move on. If we had this with every issue we'd never get anything done.

Yours &c.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list