[OSM-talk] fact-based vote?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

80n wrote:
> Indeed, we've been suffering from this license-twiddling induced stasis 
> for far too long now.  That's why I've proposed that the LWG/OSMF 
> achieve a clear and undeniable mandate by September 1st or just drop the 
> whole thing.  We can't afford to let this cancer continue eating away at 
> the project any longer.

If it had been for what was then the LWG, we'd have switched to ODbL 
some time in early 2009. At that time, the plans were shoddy, many 
details about the ODbL were totally unclear, and it looked as if we'd 
all be steamrolled into a license change with minimal information.

There was, predictably, an outcry, and I was among those who protested 
at the slipshod way of making such a big decision.

Since then, a lot of work has been done, refining definitions, 
explaining consequences, evaluating use cases. Tons and tons of 
documentation are on the Wiki, countless hours have been spent 
consulting lawyers. The matter has been handled with all the diligence 
it deserves.

I'm surprised that you should call what seems to me like a proper 
process a "cancer eating away at the project". Would you have preferred 
a quick license switch 1.5 years ago when nobody really had thought 
about what a derived database was, what a produced work was, and what 
"substantial" meant in the context of our database?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"