[OSM-talk] License talk (Was: Suggestion for an Unconference)

[Johnny Rose Carlsen]

David Murn <davey at incanberra.com.au> wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 09:23 -0500, Gerald A wrote:
> 
> > Just a small point -- legal-talk is an open and publicly available
> > list. I don't think
> > suggesting and steering the discussion to the topical list is
> > "hiding".
> 
> If there was a proposal to change the name to OpenMap instead of
> OpenStreetMap, which dragged on for many months, and everytime someone
> brought up an issue, someone said 'get over it, take it to new-name
> email list', would you believe that to be acceptable or 'hiding' an
> important discussion?  As others have said, legal details such as
> grammatical or legalese issues, should be discussed on legal-talk.

I'm not saying "Get over it", I really need the discussion too. I
don't want it hidden either - I just want to move to a place where
people actually care and can have a good discussion about the issues.

At the moment, its the same points being repeated over and over
again. It doesn't add any value, and it just pulls all the
conversations off-topic.

This conversation is no better - we are now off-topic discussing this.

  
> What would you think if parliament simply made laws and refused to
> publish the changed laws, stating that if you really wanted to know
> about law changes, youre welcome to sit in the public gallery all day
> and keep up-to-date yourself.  Not everyone cares enough to sit
> through legal deliberations for 12 hours, to keep track of law
> changes theyre required to comply with, in the same way not everyone
> cares enough to read through all the legal detail that belongs on the
> talk list, simply to stay up-to-date with general information, such
> as timelines and the life of their data.

I'm not requiring you to sit in a hall for 12 hour a day, I'm not even
requiring you to sit there for an hour. I just want you to subscribe to
a list where people might actually be willing to discuss it.

If they are not willing to discuss it there, they are probably not
willing to discuss it here either.

I can't really see what is gained by mentioning the CT problem every
time someone mentions imports. I think everyone understands that
problem by now. And I think everyone also understands that imports can
be more important in some areas than others - which is the discussion
that always follows.


> > So, you are not alone. Personally, I think the constant repetition
> > and ensuing flamewar does more harm then any license change might
> 
> I think such an important issue taking so many years to get anywhere,
> and not sticking at all to any timeline, is whats doing more harm than
> good.  The problem is, rather than addressing the handful of
> complaints (that as you point out are repeated over and over again),
> the powers that be are telling them to go away, then wondering why we
> dont.  People keep saying the decisions have been made many years
> ago, so, why has it taken so long to do anything?

I think the reason it takes so long is because every person that have
an opinion about the license wants to be heard and acknowledged even if
the point they are making has been made and answered before. Answering
and acknowledging everyone takes time.

There are many issues, and many valid points - but I'm afraid many of
them drown in the flood of comments coming from all sides. I also think
the LWG may have spend too much time trying to reason with and satisfy
everyone - which is clearly impossible.

I'd say let them work and come with a new revision. If there are issues
then point them out at legal-talk, make your point clear for the LWG -
and then stop repeating it in every post after that. Accept that the
license will never be able to satisfy all (which may or may not
include you).

If the end result is awful, then we reject it and move on. Apparently
many people are ready to make a fork (This is also repeated quite
often) and if enough people have the same opinion the fork might be
successful.

Hopefully a fork is not necessary.


> Im sure the time its taken for this licence change, is many times
> longer than the whole project took to establish in the first place,
> and has probably dragged on for a significant portion of the projects
> life. THAT is whats doing harm to the project, not people discussing
> it.

I agree that it has taken too long - I think everyone agrees on that.
But I don't think anyone knows how to do it better or faster. If you
know a realistic way on how to progress faster, destroying as little as
possible in the way, then I'm sure LWG would like to know.


> Open projects like this, generally dont attract the sheep who just put
> up with it, they attract people who are aware of their licence rights
> and are used to groups trying to screw others to get what they want,
> usually using legal avenues to do so.

I haven't been involved in many projects like this, so I may have a
lack of experience there. But I don't see how forcing legal talk on
everyone by repeating the same arguments over and over again is going
to improve anything.


Best Regards, 
 - Johnny Carlsen