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

[SteveC]

On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:14, Nop wrote:

>
> Hi!
>
> SteveC schrieb:
>> We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of  
>> reasons but it was never with malice.
>
> But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people  
> suspect malice - and warn others about that.
>
> I do not agree, but I think it is a natural reaction, especially in  
> a community concerned about freedom:
> - You keep me in the dark and suprise me
> - You try to force my consent while I have had no chance to inform  
> myself

Yeah I'm still baffled by this one... where have I or the license  
working group tried to force any consent? I think we've been clear  
again and again that the whole process is up for discussion.

> => What are you hiding? What are you up to?

Sorry my satanic portal has just opened up again and 6 legged dinosaur- 
monkey-spiders have charged through screaming...

> I don't know you. And I had to google to check your affiliation with  
> OSMF. I have no reason to trust you. I have no reason to suspect you  
> of malice. But your repeated "Not our job" statements towards this  
> matter worries me a lot.

Yeah I'm just a total idiot and you shouldn't trust me because I want  
your brains. nom nom nom.

I only said it's not our job to back up what russ said about there  
being lots of things you don't know and we can't figure them all out  
for you.

> It is your initiative. It is your job. And if you don't do a better  
> job of including the community and breaking the news in an  
> acceptable way to everybody really quick, I fear desaster. You are  
> inviting hundreds of "No" decisions just because of bad information  
> policy.

You can keep blaming me personally for everything. I think when Eve  
ate that apple it was also my fault.... at least I think so.

Or you could help build the process now.

>>> This is the first time an ordinary OSM member had a chance to get  
>>> notice
>>> of the licence change and I bet you that there are 80000 account  
>>> holders
>>> who still have no idea that anything is going on - so the process is
>>> just starting now. And we still have failed to give notice and
>>> understandable (translated) information to the majority of  
>>> participants.
>> I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000  
>> users needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people  
>> who ever made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller  
>> still for anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an  
>> easier problem than you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier  
>> than convincing you I don't have a satanic portal in my basement.
>
> You know what you're saying? You don't care about 100000 people who  
> are interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data  
> of the 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed?

No that's your mad interpretation of what I said. Mad.

> This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be.

Look I invented that, and I concentrated on the people and not the  
technology from the very beginning which is why this project succeeded  
where others didn't.

> Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are  
> just out to grab their work when you argue like this?

Of course I can, it's called paranoia. You all attack me when I  
haven't even been the one responsible for the communications, that was  
Mikel and Grant. You don't even spend the 2.6 seconds required to  
think that there is a working group and a board and they might be  
responsible as well. No no no, it's all steve and his satanic portal.  
Mwahahhaha.

Best

Steve