[OSM-talk] License plan

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Sat Feb 28 12:21:04 GMT 2009

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > > My hope basically when starting this thread was that these
> > > fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in
> > > legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available.
> >
> > Seriously - who is this "you"?!!!
> With "you" I mean the people who are pushing ahead with this license
> change. The license plan didn't just come out of nowhere. I'm sure some
> people discussed it somewhere. So I mean those people.
> > There is no "you" in OSM. There's a big "us".
> But just because there's a big "us", is it too much to ask "us"
> for "our" opinion about the license change and for "us" to
> mention "our" concerns to the people mentioned above (from now on
> referred to as "them")? I personally just don't like it that "they"
> just decided that in one month I have to immediately make a decision on
> relicensing my data. The implication of that question is too much to
> begin with, and as said I'm very wary that because I say "yes" I would
> pass the approvals across some kind of threshold which would delete say
> 10% of all data and their derivative data which might include a lot of
> my work. I need to know first that that won't happen.

We[1] are listening.  You'd prefer to stay with the same license than lose
10% of the data.  We should take that kind of feedback on board.

What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in
order to move forward with the new license?  We should probably exclude mass
donated data as 90% is probably TIGER anyway.  So what percentage of *user
contributed* data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order
to move forward with the new license?


[1] We = Us

> > So "I want a very detailed answer", in your previous message, is the
> > wrong way to go about things.
> Well sorry, but I really do want it. Who comes up with it (it could be
> me) doesn't matter. This should really be resolved before getting to
> the question we will all get in a month.
> Ben
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090228/25fc1f07/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list