[Rebuild] Another issue to consider: Osmosis replication

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Fri Feb 17 13:27:00 GMT 2012


On 02/17/12 13:47, Michael Collinson wrote:
> Are there not two issues here? One is the technical rebuild which makes
> the database ODbL licensABLE, (but not necessarily ODbL licensED). The
> other is the point at which which we say " the database is now
> distributed under ODbL"

Until now, my assumption was that OSMF is eager to say "the database is 
now distributed under ODbL" at the earliest possible time after 1st April.

That the database needs to be relicensable before they do that is what 
causes all the work ;)

You are right in observing that we could run all the steps on one day 
and then publicly announce that the database is now ODbL a month later.

> and someone then adds a new node that cannot
> distributed under CC-BY-SA.

Nobody can add a node that "cannot be distributed under CC-BY-SA" 
because everyone has explicitly granted OSMF the right to distribute the 
database under CC-BY-SA *and* ODbL, via the contributor terms!

> Anyone wanting to maintain a continuing
> CC-BY-SA database would be highly unlikely to want to receive our
> rebuilds and cannot receive diffs going forward without tainting their
> own db.

Yes. Anyone wanting to continue a CC-BY-SA database would simply have to 
switch off diffs. But I was asking about people who want to continue to 
consume OSM updates by the minute; what would we tell them? Drop an 
reimport our new planet, or "here take this .osc which will fix things 
for you"?


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the Rebuild mailing list