[Osmf-talk] Réf.: Re: ODbL switchover at SOTM, bad idea

THEVENON Julien julien_thevenon at yahoo.fr
Sun Sep 2 00:08:15 UTC 2012

thanks for the clarification of the process.

if everything is clear and has been well done I don't see any drawback to perform the annoucement during SOTM.
I was just afraid about a prematured announcement only for maketing reason before everything be ready...


PS: send from my phone,sorry for this top posting

Le sam. 1 sept. 2012 16:33 HAEC, Michael Collinson a écrit :

>On 31/08/2012 17:05, THEVENON Julien wrote:
>> *>> De :* Christian Quest <cquest at openstreetmap.fr <mailto:cquest at openstreetmap.fr>
>> *>> *I fully agree with Frederik.
>> *>> *I don't understand why the Board would put any pressure.
>> *>> *Please, please, don't ruin long term with short term.
>> *>> *Thanks in advance.
>> +1
>> The OSMF must be irreproachable, particulary considering that this its responsability to make OSM licence be respected
>I believe we have a reasonable procedure in place. The LWG set a number of criteria at the end of July which we want satisfied before we will make a formal recommendation that the license be changed. We are not under any board pressure to do that prematurely and have not done so yet. On the other hand, we did not want things to drag on forever and so we set up a specific checklist. As things stand today, there is a very good chance that everything is going to be ticked and SOTM will make a great venue to do the formal change-over amongst fellow OSM-ers.  Things outside the checklist, we feel and have discussed, can be finalised post change-over. In particular, that if there are further claims of non-ODbL material in the database after July 31st, that they be dealt with as part of a normal take-down procedure.
>The first thing we wanted were tests that the redaction bot and its rules worked properly from a technical point of view. Ticked.  Everything we have looked at was either a non-issue or was due to other factors.
>The next thing we wanted was to see that if we claims of copyright infringement, then the OSMF volunteers and the OSM community has sufficient tools and processes to actually do a proper analysis and take any action required in reasonable time.  I think that has resulted in some blood and sweat for some of our technical volunteers, but it has worked and tools have and are being improved for general purpose use going forward. A big, big thanks to all concerned.
>We also wanted to improve our take-down system so that if there are vestigal cases that need investigating there is a uniform place to go.  We've filed updated details with the United States Copyright Office and this and other information can be found here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Takedown_procedure . Frederik has raised this as specific issue and I am reviewing everything we have this weekend. A special email address is already working and an on-line web form will go live shortly.
>Lastly, we wanted to clear any infringement claims made by July 31st, i.e, to say that it has been investigated and either report that there is nothing wrong or that material has been redacted/reverted.  This is where we are now.   Each specific claim has been looked at.  I am not 100% but I think that is everything, not just to July 31st.  As a result some extra redaction processes are under way.  Most have already finished.  There is no guarentee, but the ones the LWG wants to see finish may do so in a few hours.  In that case, I will get a consensus opinion of LWG members on whether to send our recommendation. Input from other working groups also welcome.
>I hope that helps discussion.

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list