[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"
Anthony
osm at inbox.org
Mon Jul 19 21:31:36 BST 2010
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Graham Jones <grahamjones139 at googlemail.com
> wrote:
> 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....
>
IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
place.
> 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.
>
The only way I can imagine the data loss being less than 10% is if the
contributions of inactive users are forcibly relicensed without their
consent (*). Hasn't at least 10% of the map been touched by users who are
no longer contributing? Should I run the numbers on that one, or can
someone else run them for me?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100719/855e7666/attachment.html>
More information about the talk
mailing list