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

[Nop]

Hi!



Ok, first of all, when I use the term "you" I don't mean you personally, 
I mean the OSMF as a group. I have no idea who's in charge of what 
there, I just know that none of you has taken care of an information 
process and you are currently listening.

SteveC schrieb:
>> 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?

I was trying to explain the way how many people have reacted to the 
proposed time table in absence of comprehensive and comprehensible 
information. And there's quite some posts on this list that express 
exactly that reaction.

You (the OSMF) have not been clear on anything - a clear, official 
announcement is exactly what is sorely missing.

>> 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.

(* Again - you as the OSMF).

> Or you could help build the process now.

I am sorry, but I cannot write the official information bulletin with 
your* ideas and your* intentions for you*. I also cannot take the 
initative for you*. And I cannot restore your credibility. You* will 
need to do that yourself. You* need to be source of the information.

What I can do is translate it into German and continue from there. 
Actually, I bet you* would be surprised about how many volunteers you* 
get to help you* in spreading the news -  if you* ever had started any 
organized information process. But I don't remember ever seeing a 
request: "Here we have the rationale we want everybody to understand - 
who can translate it?"

So maybe you* want to start a proper information campaign now?

I am waiting to help. And personally, I would prefer doing some 
constructive work for a good plan over opposing a disastrous plan any time.

> 
>>>> 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?

If you want the community to adopt the new licence (as opposed to fork 
off in protest), you need to convince the people in the community. If I 
think this way, I count 100000 people who should at least be able to 
make an informed decision.

If you want to narrow it down to only the people who did significant 
edits, that is a suspiciously data-oriented view. The community also 
needs the people who are developing tools or who edit wiki pages or who 
are still working up to become big mappers. It would be great if they 
all consented rather than to split off.

Shouldn't the more important question be: "How many *people* do I 
loose?" instead of "How much *data* do I loose"? If we can agree on that 
then I guess I really misunderstood you there.


bye
	Nop


PS: And I really don't care how many demons you keep in your basement. 
That's between you and your landlord. :-)