[OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[SteveC]

On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:20, Nop wrote:

>
> Hi!
>
> Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
>> Out of curiosity, what would have been better? The licence has been
>> recognised to be a problem for years, it was known well before I
>> joined. It's been discussed at almost every OSM meeting I've been at.
>> But you're right, we didn't plaster a huge banner on the front page
>> advertising it because frankly that would be pointless. How many
>> people knew wikipedia had a licence problem before they changed?
>
> No idea, never been into wikipedia. But I can assure you that you  
> can be
> with OSM for 6 months, consider yourself rather active, be  
> subscribed to
> talk, talk-de and the forum and visit the local OSM meetings without
> ever getting any hint to that licence business.
>
>> I thought there was a message added while creating an account along
>> the line of "the data is under CC-BY-SA but may be changed at some
>> later date". hmm, looks like that never happened, oh well.
>>
>> I'm just wondering what kind of notification would have been
>> appropriate for you.
>
> Actually, I think the attempt to convince 100000 people to cooperate  
> is
> an awe-inspiring task to me. At work, I usually don't have to convince
> more than 50 people of something not all will agree with and that is
> something I already consider difficult. So it merits some work.
>
> I guess a good strategy would have been:
>
> 1. Provide some background information and keep it current
> - the problems with the current licence
> - the intention of the new licence
> - the current state of the process
> - and later the wording of the licence

Perhaps you could put that together?

> 2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most people
> speak English to some degree, but some don't and something of this
> importance and with so much legalese involved does need to be in your
> native language to be sure you understood it. Keep translations  
> current,
> also.

That would be great, when will you start organising them?

> 3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some unoffical
> votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea  
> would
> have worked.

Yeah I think that's usually a great idea but I get the sense the vast  
majority of the community are apathetic or bored by the tone of these  
exchanges and so the ones who vote are the ones who really take  
extreme views. So it's hard to do it in a way that we get a real sense  
of the lay of the land. Unless you have some ideas?


> 4. Mail an announcement to every member of OSM when you start and when
> there is significant progress, linking the information pages. One  
> every
> few months would have been enough. This would have given those people
> who are interested a chance to get informed and either get involved or
> be satisfied with what they read. Most people would ignore those mails
> but feel informed rather than surprised.

Something similar I thought about was having an OSM 'buddy program' so  
when you join you are assigned an existing community member who helps  
you though the process of mapping and getting to know the community  
and tools.

> 5. Give people plenty of time to react.
>
>
> Actually I am worried. You may have noticed that there are many
> complaints, and also hostile reactions and suspicions voiced. And I  
> bet
> you that still most OSM members have no idea that anything is going  
> on,
> because they do mapping and not mailing lists. You have only seen the
> peak of the iceberg. But that still gives the foundation the chance to
> get something right. I am in favor of the new licence. But I don't
> believe it can be done by April. The only thing that can be achieved  
> by
> April is splitting or breaking OSM apart.

Your worry is well placed, however I disagree that the vitriol here on  
these lists is widely held by the majority of the people who have  
mapped.

Best

Steve