[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> Anthony
>
> The reason we have a hostile relationship is because of all your spamming
> and trolling.

I'm not FOSM, so that's rather irrelevant, even if it were true.

I also thought that relationship had been mended, as the previous
conversation we had was cordial.

> You were kicked from the legal list, the only person I'm aware
> of to have managed that.

I was placed on moderation on the "legal" list.  I have no idea if I
am unique in that respect.

> 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.

I'm not interested in your funding.  Not in the least.  You're right
that I think I would benefit from a nice relationship, though.  And
you're right that I don't want to help the community switch licenses,
as I don't agree with the new license (I explained that to you last
time we emailed, which apparently you've forgotten).

As you say that the license disagreement is a "minor difference", I'm
not sure why you're harping on it.  I agree with you that we both have
much more in common in our greater goals of mapping the world.

> 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.

If the only way you are willing to have a mutually beneficial
relationship is if I/we/FOSM/CommonMap agree to help you switch to a
license that I/we/FOSM/CommonMap do not approve, then it's not going
to happen.

I cannot support a switch to the ODbL.  But I am very much willing and
interested in supporting OSMF in its larger goal of mapping the world.

Anthony

> 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
>>> world.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>