[OSM-talk] Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation : A solution proposal
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.gremmen at cetest.nl
Tue Aug 24 06:58:22 BST 2010
A fork as stipulated is not necessarily about a group of people leaving OSM , but about
we (OSM) deciding to continue in two or more future directions
covered by different licenses, and maybe finally decide which license fits best.
This would require the OSM database to include a extra field for each and every item indicating the license
the data was provided by its contributor. The license choice can be made in the users profile.
For most of OSM there is no difference.
The license is only relevant once data is extracted to external parties.
External parties will therefore always know under what license any node and any way of the
database had been granted to them.
The map server and most applications at would remain as they are.
We may however create a second and or more maps showing only the data from specific licenses
and enabling OSM-ers to evaluate the consequences of their choices.
I think this is the only way to solve this everlasting and destructive license discussion.
It requires however, some flexibility of mind, and the trust that OSM will not
abuse the choice made by its contributors. As the database and the license field will
be visible to all of us, I trust that will be not a major problem.
Gert Gremmen
-----------------------------------------------------
Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest)
P Before printing, think about the environment.
Van: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org] Namens 80n
Verzonden: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:17 PM
Aan: mk at koppenhoefer.com
CC: talk at openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
2010/8/23 Michael Kugelmann <MichaelK_OSM at gmx.de>:
> BTW: @Felix Hartmann
> using words like
>>
>> so fuck off.
>
> shows that you don't have arguments. So step back - defamation is alsways a
> sign of weakness. Learn a good conduct before you continues with the
> discussion.
to be fair: he didn't write (others) should f**k off, what he meant
was "clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else to fuck off".
Thus I agree that this might not be adequate language, you shouldn't
critisize him for that, probably he wasn't aware because English is
not his primary language.
On the argument I agree though: make your own mailing lists for your
fork. It's probably OK to announce it here (with an URL where to go,
which was actually missing in your announcement), but further
discussions should then be brought to the place of your fork, not
inside the resources of OSM.
I also agree it would be absurd to have OSM handle over the account
data of its contributors (and is against almost any privacy law at
least in Europe). There is also no logics in that: people who want to
can simply create a new account with their old credentials on the fork
site (I'm not planning to join the fork, but if I was I surely
wouldn't use the same pw I used for OSM).
There is absolutely no need for OSM to relinquish any private account data. No fork will ever need that data and I doubt that any fork would even bother asking OSM for it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100824/bad70155/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5310 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100824/bad70155/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the talk
mailing list