[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] That license change link

[80n]

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 8 July 2010 23:30, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
> >> Simple percentage of contributors might be too limiting as a bright
> >> line as contributions follow a long tail.
> >> See the lowest graph on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats
> >
> > I wouldn't do it on percentage of contributors, since the majority of
> > contributors never contribute anything.
>
> That graph, aiui, is those with one or more map edits (ways).
>
> > Instead I would do it based on percentages of contributions, while
> > there is a lot of user contributing some changes, there is a limited
> > number contributing most changes.
> >
> > If you want suggestions on numbers, I would suggest no less than 90%
> > of data contributed, I'm guessing this will be about 5-10% of users.
>
> You can find 10% of users who contribute 90% of the data.  I would be
> really disappointed if only 10% of users accepted the upgrade.
>
> I'd expect to see substantially more users accept the upgrade.  My
> hope / expectation is for 95% plus both for users and for data. That
> may be unrealistic and / or naive enthusiasm on my part. And I see
> those numbers as undeniable support from the community, not as a
> minimum requirement.
>
> One problem is that there's very little incentive for contributors to care
enough to agree to the change.  The big wins are (theoretically) for the
consumers of the data, and they don't get a vote (at least as consumers).

When you consider how inpenetrable OdBL is (not to mention the almost
universally misunderstood European Database Directive on which it is based)
it's hard to imagine that any except the most fanatical of contributors will
really care.

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20100708/2794e169/attachment.html>