[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[Graham Jones]

It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.

I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see
what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it
did not seem like an issue.   I can't even remember if I took much notice of
the contributor terms....

I heard the arguments from a number of people warning of loss of data but
made the judgement that individual contributors are unlikely to object to
the change, and that the proposers of the new licence must have assured
themselves that contributions based on large datasets such as nearmap must
be compatible.   It sounds to me that that judgement may have been flawed,
so I should have taken more care.

The way I look at it is that if we will really have to remove large parts of
the map of Australia (never mind other parts of the world - I don't think I
have seen confirmation that the UK Ordnance Survey OpenData is compatible
yet?) then moving to a new licence would be the wrong thing to do.  I just
do not see the existing situation as being broken enough to be worth the
pain - this debate has used up a huge amount of people's time and effort
which could have been used on something more constructive.

This probably brings us back to where this long email debate started - just
how much data do we expect to lose, and what would we consider acceptable?
 My personal tolerance of loss of data is extremely small (maybe <1%).
Once you start to talk about losing of the order 10% or more of a country, I
have a lot of sympathy with the contributors in that area talking about
forking the project.

Regards


Graham.


On 19 July 2010 19:47, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

> We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the
> remit the OSMF has.
>
> Steve
>
> stevecoast.com
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC < <steve at asklater.com>
> steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> > On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm < <frederik at remote.org>
>> frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>> >> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM
>> contributors
>> >> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In
>> one
>> >> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater
>> number
>> >> of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do?
>> We're
>> >> the minority ;)
>> >
>> > I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
>> > employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
>> > right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
>> > have been in vein exactly?
>>
>> I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right
>> rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under
>> the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my
>> experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in
>> person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd
>> prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the
>> license.
>>
>> So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote?
>
> Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a
> choice?  Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree
> to?
>
> My experience off list is clearly different to yours.
>
> 80n
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Steve
>>
>>  <http://stevecoast.com>stevecoast.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>>  <talk at openstreetmap.org>talk at openstreetmap.org
>>  <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>


-- 
Dr. Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK
email: grahamjones139 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100719/27467958/attachment.html>