[OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

Mon Jul 19 18:05:30 BST 2010

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:41 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

> Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything
> I said and twisted it 180 degrees.
>

So, really, you agree with me, but I've just twisted it so that it appears
that you disagree with me? ;)

If I've mis-interpreted what you said then please clarify your meaning.

> Gun to your head?
>

This objection was made by Ulf Lamping in December 2009 [1].  The LWG has
failed to address this issue.  The LWG is directed by OSMF and, you, the
chairman of OSMF have just said " I say the LWG should just push ahead with
the plan".  The LWG appears to listen to your comments more closely than
Ulf's.  They have chosen to ignore this issue.

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24450.html

Quashing discussion?
>

Your attitude is well documented, for example:
http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24483.html

All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG.
>

What you said was "But, every time they do something, the mailing lists fill
up ..."  What I thought was maybe there's a reason for that.

>
> There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet
> you pick bitter dissent. That's not the 80n I remember, where's it coming
> from?
>

Steve
>
> stevecoast.com
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:17 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC < <steve at asklater.com>
> steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote:
>> > In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of
>> ignorance. Shit happens.
>> >
>> > Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody
>> abuses the spirit of the license.  What kind of shit is that?
>>
>> People abuse it all the time, cf Nike and many others.
>>
>> I'm not surprised it's low level anyway right now, the amount of abuse
>> will be a function of the completeness of the data. We're not really a
>> routable dataset just yet and most of the planet is missing address data. As
>> we approach these points fast, the amount of abuse will go up with it.
>>
>> And how will ODbL stop that?  Nike hasn't taken any notice of CC-BY-SA and
> presumably wouldn't have taken any notice of ODbL either.  I suppose you
> could argue that what they did would be permitted under ODbL, but that's a
> slightly different argument.  Your point was that the ODbL would somehow
> stop license abuse.
>
>
>
>> Anyway. Let me make two points:
>>
>> My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to
>> the ODbL so long as everyone else does... is that it's basically just a vote
>> on whether to have a vote. It's also without any consequences.
>>
>> The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if
>> the majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the
>> incentives to vote yes or no are vastly different than saying yes or no to
>> the actual license change. That means that people will vote differently and
>> perhaps to the extent that it will be uncorrelated with an actual license
>> change decision. In other words, your reasons for voting yes or no
>> 'theoretically' are very different to voting yes or no in actuality. If
>> anyone here has a degree in economics or psychology they'd be able to wave
>> around all kinds of textbooks showing how hard it is to measure things like
>> this when you have no real incentives - for example asking people if they'd
>> pay for and go to a gym to get fit - we all know people say they'd like to
>> do those things and never do.
>>
>
> Indeed.  That is the whole point of having such a vote.  It allows people
> to express an unbiased view rather than being presented with an ultimatum.
> It's long been a criticism that the license change proposal is a gun to
> head.  The LWG has chosen not to take any notice of that.  No wonder there's
> an outcry at each step in the process.  Please, put the gun away.
>
>
>>
>> Based on the theoretical vote being wildly inaccurate and also not really
>> affecting anything, I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan.
>
>
> You're the one with the gun.  What you say goes.
>
>
>
>> If everyone catastrophically says 'no' to the ODbL (which I doubt, but
>> hey) then they can go back to the drawing board with a concrete result. If
>> we all agree, then we can just get on with mapping. But going back to the
>> drawing board with a proxy to a vote - a vote on whether to have a vote - is
>> incredibly flimsy and will just pull out everyone on the other side of the
>> argument who'll charge that it was an invalid vote.
>>
>> In sum, having a vote on whether to have a vote just slows us all down for
>> no particular reason.
>>
>> Therefore, just put the voluntary license change thing out there (so
>> people can change if they want to) and continue with the rest of the plan.
>> If it turns out to be awful and we lost lots of people (which I doubt) then
>> you can consider things at that stage.
>>
>> Oh and by the way, as a thought experiment - if 50% of people drop out due
>> to the license change then you only have to wait a few months for the data
>> to be put back in by other new people - go and look at the user growth and
>> data growth graphs. It's really not as bad as it looks, even under a bad
>> scenario like 50%.
>>
>>
>>
>> My second point - have a think on what affect you're all having on the
>> people in the LWG. They've now been working on this for _years_ meeting
>> every week. That's a huge amount of effort and investment. These are good
>> people doing their best to find a way forward. But, every time they do
>> something, the mailing lists fill up ...
>
>
> This is clearly a symptom of the problem.  Perhaps they aren't doing the
> right thing or not doing it in the right way.  Are we supposed to go along
> with what they say just because they've been working very hard on it.  They
> should at least be trying to work on the right thing.
>
>
>> with new things they should do which leads to a steady state - they
>> complete one task and then are given a new one to do without actually
>> approaching the goal. They have to balance this with a fair number of people
>> complaining that it's taking them forever to get anywhere. That's not a fun
>> situation to be in. For years.
>>
>
>> Very few of us here with all these opinions and time on the mailing list -
>> whether they are good, bad or ugly opinions - have the time, whatever our
>> position for or against the license etc, to sit through this stuff week
>> after week in the working group and push this stuff forward.
>>
>
> Are you saying that contributors don't have the right to express their
> opinions, and that they should shut up?  That's what it sounds like.
>
>
>>
>> I'm worried that we're going to burn the guys on the LWG out. They must
>> feel like they're in some kafka-esque dialogue with no upside for them.
>
>
>> They chose to be on the working group and do all this work of course, but
>> the worst thing that could happen is that they conclude that it will take
>> another couple of years to get anywhere and decide to go and do something
>> more useful with their time. I know for a fact that some of them don't even
>> read some of these mailing lists anymore because of it. So why don't we just
>> cool off a bit and give them a nod of thanks before diving on with this
>> stuff - whatever direction it goes in.
>
>
>> Steve
>>
>>  <http://stevecoast.com>stevecoast.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100719/b0ffb1c7/attachment.html>