[Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

[Gordon Dewis]

All...

I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that I
am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back cleaning
up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I would
respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question.

Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think
you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every
street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been
removed, too.

  --Gordon (Keeper of Maps)

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT.
>
> If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and
> why was there so much chatter about it?  And if I recall my reply, it
> was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up
> your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big
> improvement for OSM.  Is that about right?
>
> > On looking more deeply into
> > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license
> > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish.  Currently it
> is
> > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing
> > document.
>
> You appear not to have looked deeply enough.  The CTs allow additional
> license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by
> approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the
> time.  [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email
> within three weeks.]  So a new license has to be Free and Open and
> approved by the community.  Or perhaps you've just changed your mind.
>
> > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a
> GPS
> > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new CT
> > but very little else.
> >
> > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance.
> >
> > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed
> but
> > all have been ignored.
> >
> > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually.
>
> Your premise is flawed.  It's not "your" data once you contribute to a
> collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us.
> It's not your well if you help the village dig it.  You can't decide
> you would rather use it as a latrine.  That's a decision the village
> has to take together.
>
> The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are
> offering each contributor the option to have their contributions
> removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than
> would be expected.  It is an exceptionally cautious approach by the
> OpenStreetMap Foundation and generous to a fault to those with qualms
> about the license.
>
> > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced
> > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM
> in
> > its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not
> > acceptable to CANVEC.
>
> Canvec and GeoBase data are already approved for CT/ODbL.  I think
> those were announced here many months ago.
>
> So, you are happy with CT/ODbL with the data you mentioned above.  So
> you don't have an objection to CT/ODbL.  Canvec and GeoBase data are
> already compatible with CT/ODbL, so there is no need for you (or
> anybody else) to remove that data based on CT/ODbL.  Is that correct?
>
> > I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been
> > deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed to
> be
> > an appropriate time to start deleting.
>
> You mean here?  In ¶4 ?
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006044.html
>
> Frederik's email counsels against exactly what you think that you've
> done.  He says that prematurely deleting data of license decliners
> would be inappropriate and cause unneeded community tension.  But you
> went ahead and deleted stuff.  And Frederik's email has nothing to do
> with this situation.  You've accepted CT/ODbL.
>
> > Sorry for any inconvenience.
>
> Question open to the room.  What now?  What should John do?  What should we
> do?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20110606/8ec0ffc9/attachment.html>