[talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?

[David Murn]

On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:50 -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:24 AM, David Murn <davey at incanberra.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering this question tonight.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > This only shows where there is clear evidence of licence violations
> > without having to look past the data's tags.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > Food for thought
> 
> "Junk food" at best.  ;-)  OSM is currently published under CC-By-SA.
> There is no current "violation", even if what you suggest would be
> considered a "violation".  We already know that some contributors have
> changesets that they wish to have removed before ODbL publication.
> That can't be done until Phase 4.

Good point, lets wait until the end of Phase 5 before we start thinking
about users who have accepted the terms when they shouldnt have.  You
refer to 'some' contributors, I refer to over 100.

You completely missed my point about the fact that some users (upto 25%)
have accepted the terms which they cannot comply with.  Whether that is
a violation at this point in time, is irrelevant.  Whether anyone
bothers to look into the problem before relicencing data they dont own,
IS relevant, also the fact that people will continue to agree to the
terms, having used data which cannot be relicenced.

Maybe a more serious note should be put there advising that if youve
used a CC-BY-SA data source, you cannot accept the licence (without
having to read through a dozen pages of legalese).  As has been
discussed here previously, many users of software have become accustomed
to always accepting licence terms without reading them, as experience
tells that declining an agreement means no further progress.  This isnt
a problem if someone breaks a licence by installing anti-virus on 2
computers, but it is a problem if someone breaks a licence by
relicencing incompatible data into the OSM project, which is then used
in-turn by millions.

David