[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
steve at asklater.com
Fri Jul 8 19:19:31 BST 2011
The reason we have a hostile relationship is because of all your
spamming and trolling. You were kicked from the legal list, the only
person I'm aware of to have managed that.
I suspect the real reason you want a nice relationship is funding and
other benefits we've worked hard for, while refusing to help with the
community process to switch licenses.
At this point really the positive gestures need to come from you, for
example helping us switch so we can all (including FOSM) move on.
On 7/8/2011 6:23 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Steve Coast<steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>> I mean throw away the efforts of all the licensing work we've done because
>> one guy doesn't like technical detail X or has moral objection Y. That is,
>> that we have spent many man years on this and there is no way to make
>> everyone happy. We tried hard and it's time to move on. Also, once we're
>> switched it's much easier to make the kind of fixes you want as subsequent
>> switches are orders of magnitude more easy. Thus, lets put our minor
>> differences aside and work for the greater goals we have, like mapping the
> I for one think a partnership between FOSM and OSMF would be a great
> thing. We *are* both trying to map the world. I've made this
> invitation before but I'd like to make it again: Work with us to help
> preserve, and keep up to date, the CC-BY-SA data which otherwise would
> be left to rot in a static "final dump". If you believe, as you say,
> that CC-BY-SA might work out the problems (which you say are minor) in
> the 4.0 license, then you'll be especially glad you have FOSM to help
> you switch back.
> There's no reason that FOSM and OSMF have to have a hostile
> relationship. We're both trying to map the world, under the license
> we deem most appropriate.
More information about the Talk-au