[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
steve at asklater.com
Fri Jul 8 19:05:28 BST 2011
On 7/8/2011 5:04 AM, Sam Couter wrote:
> SteveC<steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>> No, John smith and friends are a separate issue, they troll many different discussions.
> Who are "and friends"? I only watch talk-au so if there's trolling going
> on elsewhere I haven't seen it. What I have seen is you dismissing others
> as being deliberately disruptive or as having hidden agendas, instead of
> addressing what they actually say.
Ah, you need some context.
If you go look at talk@ you'll find a lot of history from the people who
now inhabit this list. In fact, several of them have either been banned
>> Actually no, I've said im unaware of any reasons not to accept (given we fixed near map, we fixed ordnance survey...) which is not the same as saying there aren't any.
> Many reasons have been given. I'll give you my two biggest right now:
> Eternal, irrevocable rights grant and indeterminate future licencing.
Well the eternal right thing applies to CC and most other licenses, so I
suspect that you don't like who the licensee is, OSMF? That's the reason
it's shaped that the OSMF immediately license it back. From what I
remember, our legal advice was there has to be a licensing party that
things are assigned to in order to make it work.
As for future licensing, do you have a better idea? As I've said, if we
gave a more strict definition then a whole lot more people would
complain, if it was more loose then more would complain. So the line has
to be drawn somewhere and the LWG chose that balance. I doubt very much
we could draw the line anywhere else without more, not less, problems.
> For my own contributions using my own GPS traces and survey work, that's
> one thing. I haven't yet decided if I'll create a new OSM account and
> click "Accept", I've clicked "Decline" for my existing OSM account
> because of the sources I've used in the past. But I can't agree to the
> CTs when I'm using CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.
> Nearmap isn't the problem and doesn't need fixing, ODbL is. Maybe it
> can't be fixed any time soon, but denying that it's a problem doesn't help.
You keep repeating that I am deny all these problems. Could you go back
and read, as above, where I point out all sorts of problems and it's
about finding a balance? Whatever we do, there will be problems.
>>> you have denied any problems with licence incompatibility.
>> Where did I do that? I think I mention multiple times how many problems we have had in many areas.
> You seem to think that all the Australian CC-BY and CC-BY-SA data that has
> been imported can either be kept, which seems unlawful to me, or deleted
> without considering it any real loss.
You keep doing this too. Where do I say anything of the sort? I have no
idea what this data is you're referring to, or what license it's under.
Why do you assume I do know all about it?
Of course you can't just relicence data without permission, and of
course we want to minimize deletion.
Why don't you start at the beginning and explain what, where and when
this data was imported? Did you ever bring it up with the LWG?
>>> I hate to sound like a third-grader, but you started the ad hominem.
>> I did, where?
> The first message I replied to. Accusing others of hidden agendas or riling
> you up for no reason other than enjoyment.
I've known them for a lot longer than you have it seems, and as I
mention they've been kicked, banned or moderated before.
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au