[OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Sun Aug 8 12:25:01 BST 2010


On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>wrote:

>
> Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> > I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly
> > dislike their attitude.
>
> Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance.
>
> I'm getting increasingly exasperated with people projecting this big
> bogeyman (or strawman. A big man made out of straw bogeys) of PD onto
> what's
> meant to be a debate about exchanging one share-alike licence for another
> share-alike licence.
>
> PD has nothing to do with it. Full stop. OSM is a share-alike project and
> is
> always going to be a share-alike project. We were trying to talk about ODbL
> (remember that?) before the conspiracy theorists waded in.
>
> As someone who personally prefers PD this saddens me, not least because I
> can see the trend in geodata is for ever more permissive licensing and that
> OSM is therefore going to be out on a limb in ten years' time, probably
> with
> a bunch of local, permissively-licensed projects chipping away at it. But
> there's a difference between "what should be" and "what can be", and
> seriously, the chances of getting this fractious community to agree to a PD
> relicensing is nil. Never. That much should be obvious to anyone who has
> read the mailing lists at any point in the last five years. It isn't going
> to happen.
>
> At this point someone will mention the relicensing clause in the
> Contributor
> Terms. It is my opinion that this is unnecessary: the "any future version"
> clauses in both CC-BY-SA and ODbL should be adequate. I've told LWG this
> and
> they're considering it. (See
> https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_3d3ws9sgn point 5.)
>
> Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the LWG
changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process?  There are
already some 30,000 accounts that have signed up to CT 1.0, if the next
batch agrees to a differently worded CT 1.1 then every future decision has
to take account of both these two groups and all those who are still on
CC-BY-SA.  It could quickly become a very tangled knot.

What mandate does LWG have to change the contributor terms anyway?  Would
they need to put it to a vote of OSMF members or would they need to follow
the guidelines that the CT lays down?  Perhaps they should add an "or later"
clause while they are at it so that they can change the contributor terms
any time they like.

80n







> And seriously, Aussie guys, global warming is going to fuck your precious
> coastline anyway so I'd stop getting quite so het up about it. :p
>
> cheers
> Richard
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5385814.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100808/7365d2b2/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list