[Osmf-talk] Results of OSMF Member Vote

Matija Nalis mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr
Mon Dec 28 00:33:04 UTC 2009

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:01:11PM +0000, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Matija Nalis wrote:
> > I would actually expect OSMF membership to be *more* interested in the
> > license change issues than the average OSM contributor
> I think that's, at best, a misguided judgement and at worst a  
> dreadfully arrogant one. Just because licence issues exercise you or  
> me doesn't mean that anyone else is remotely interested in them. IME  

I agree with you that majority of people are *not* interested in such stuff
as licensing issues and would rather go out and map and have fun. I was just
hinting that I expected average OSMF member to care somewhat more about the
issue that average OSM contributor.

(as IMO being able to be active in such issues is one of the major benefits
of being the member; the other "big" one being some discount on SoTM &
similar events if one plans to attend them -- otherwise one could just
donate instead of bothering with membership).

> most people just want to go and map: a 55% turnout is actually pretty  
> good.

Maybe I have not expressed myself good enough; 55% turnout might indeed be
good for trivial issues that most people don't really care about (like, for
example, the specific details of copyleft license to use).

However, if we do get the same (or similar) turnout on the actual
relicensing question sent to OSM contributors (due to happen soon?), that
would AFAICT mean that contributions of all those ~45% people who didn't
bother or didn't want to answer the question, as well as those ~11% who were
against will have their data REMOVED from the map, which is *much* much
worse then trivialities about minor points of the license. And then there is
a fact that a lot of data even from those OSM contributores who accepted the
license will get removed, as it depends on other "tainted" data.

So, what I'm talking about is that while majority of OSM contributors might
not care if the license ends up to be CC-BY-SA or ODbL (which I fully expect
majority of them really won't care), they would care a PLENTY if due to such
low turnout *more than a half* of the data (45%+11%+xx%) and years of work
*gets deleted* in few months time. I know I would.

> > Even *much* better results (like "only" 20% of the map being destroyed)
> > would be IMO too horrible to justify the advantages the clearer license
> > brings.
> IYO indeed. I would prefer a usable, clearly licensed dataset of n  
> objects to an unlicensed, unusable dataset of n*2 objects. Google's  

Yes, IMO, of course. 

I understand other people would have other views on that. For you it seems
that loss of 50% of map data is quite OK if it makes new license clear.  For
me, loss of 50% of the map data would be totally unacceptable, even if the
new license was with absolutely minimum number of problems (and my opinion -
the one that ODbL is actually introducing considerably more problems than, 
for example, CC0 - makes my "acceptable loss" threshold even lower)

But, for exactly such differences in views I called for a vote (instead of
proclaiming my views to be the only correct ones, which would be rather silly)

> dataset is many times bigger than ours but without a usable licence it  
> is nothing.

I beg to disagree. While I do consider OSM license on data (even the buggy
CC-BY-SA which we have currently) prefered to those of google, I cannot
accept that google maps are "nothing". There are actually quite a few people
out there happily using those.

Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list