[Osmf-talk] ODbL switchover at SOTM, bad idea
henk at toffehoff.nl
Fri Aug 31 22:33:46 UTC 2012
Strange to see this discussion popping up now. Like Simon mentioned, we are
about ready to switch the license. The major issues have been resolved, a
procedure to report new claims of license infringement is in place, etc.
There will always be new issues popping up that could stop us from changing
the license. "Look, we're not ready; everything is going to fail if we
continue". Well, if you focus on the things that can go wrong it will be a
self-fulfilling prophecy: it will fail. If we want to go forward we need to
focus on our goals and try to work towards them.
True, the board has pushed the license change forward this year. At several
moments, when the process got stuck, the board had looked at alternatives
to move the process forward. And yes, some of these alternatives might have
been radical. That does not mean that the board has acted irresponsible,
like it is suggested in this mail. On the contrary. If we had not have
these discussions and the alternatives on the table, we would still have
been far away for being able to change the license.
That would mean more and longer uncertainty about what potentially had to
be deleted. That would mean more and long uncertainty with potential users
about the usage of OSM data. That would have been irresponsible behaviour!
Many mappers stopped mapping, because they feared all their work would be
deleted later on. That was bad for the project.
And look what we have achieved: during the time the redaction bot ran,
there was a great re-mapping effort, which resulted in a surge of new
streets added. When the redaction bot was finished, we ended with more
streets in our database then when the redaction bot started. Yes, we can!
Thanks to the hard work of many people we're now finally on the brink of
being able the end the license change process. That's a huge success! We
can all give ourselves a fine pat on the shoulder. Well done!
We've taken the last hurdle, the finish is in sight. Let's go for that last
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> *storm* & teacup
> Sure, if we want to avoid any inkling of impropriety lets switch the day
> before or after SOTM. In reality it is just coming together such that it in
> all likelihood we will be able to switch rsn.
> Am 31.08.2012 15:36, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> .................................We at DWG have already been
> told in no uncertain terms to "nuke" whatever problematic data remains
> as quickly as possible ("and sort out problems later"), and I believe
> folks at LWG are feeling a similar pressure.
> I believe the correct quote is "nuke the regions in question" (this would
> have involved, among other things, deleting essentially all of Germany and
> I don't think anybody involved took this at face value, nor do I assume the
> intention was that we should take this literally).
> This doesn't sound good to me.
> If it is true that issues remain to be solved, solve them BEFORE you
> throw the switch. After so many years, diligence in the license change
> must not be dented for a cheap show effect, for a "nice
> opportunity" or just to have something to announce.
> Two weeks ago we had no idea if , for example, the UMP cleanup would take
> a week, 10 weeks, or a year. As I wrote in the beginning, it just happens
> that things are coming together nicely (at last!). Once Pauls redactions
> have completed, I'm not aware of further immediate work necessary within
> the realm of current LWG policies. The DCMA stuff is in place, I assume
> the CWG has stuff prepared. Since, as previously, our data consumers will
> not automatically get updates or a ODBL planet without deliberately
> switching, I don't see anything that isn't in line with the OSM courant
> normale<http://search?hl=de&sa=X&ei=DhNBUJKIOoXWtAa23oCgBw&ved=0CCAQvwUoAQ&q=courant+normale&spell=1>(it is no secret that I'm not particularly happy with that, but that is a
> different topic) .
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk