[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Graham Jones]

My thinking on this is very similar.   I have no particular objection to the
new licence and contributor terms - I don't really care which licence my
contributions are governed by.

I am very surprised at the apparent tolerance to loss of data from the map
for the sake of transferring to a more robust licence.

I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when
there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts
over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or
contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not
clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible.
  I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to
re-licence.

It is because it is not clear whether we will have to delete all data from
these sources that I have not accepted the new licence yet - My view is that
if we have to delete that data, then we should not bother re-licensing.  I
am concerned that if I accept the new licence/contributor terms that I will
be seen to be supporting deleting this data, which I do not.   I think this
is the same issue as Ian's question about how we will decide if the change
is right or not.

If these issues have been resolved, and there is a mechanism for deciding
what level of data loss is acceptable, then I will happily re-licence my own
data, but I am looking for some reassurance before I do so.

Regards


Graham.

On 16 April 2011 16:20, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:

> I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the
> community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that
> it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never
> thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that
> that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the
> idea of relicensing.
>
> The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for
> creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe
> SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As
> if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps
> it alive.
> -russ
>
> Ian Dees writes:
>  > Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it
>  > doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for
>  > that. I have been beaten into submission.
>  >
>  > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally <dermotm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>  >
>  > > On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be "No",
> but in
>  > > > the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data
> flowing
>  > > I'll
>  > > > eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my question was
> everyone
>  > > > else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?
>  > >
>  > > FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but
>  > > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can
>  > > see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted
>  > > about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained
>  > > throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.
>  > > Turns out this stuff is complicated.
>  >
>  >
>  > No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to
> change
>  > license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication
> of
>  > the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly
> and
>  > thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held
> by
>  > the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued.
>  >
>  > Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of
>  > those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a
> small
>  > fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put
> the
>  > cart before the horse.
>  >
>  > Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk at into a
>  > field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll
> go
>  > unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept
>  > button.
>  > Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it
> doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for
> that. I have been beaten into submission.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On
> Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally <span dir="ltr"><<a
> href="mailto:dermotm at gmail.com">dermotm at gmail.com</a>></span>
> wrote:<br>
>  > <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
> #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian
> Dees <<a href="mailto:ian.dees at gmail.com">ian.dees at gmail.com</a>>
> wrote:<br>
>  >
>  > <br>
>  > > Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be
> "No", but in<br>
>  > > the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data
> flowing I'll<br>
>  > > eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my
> question was everyone<br>
>  > > else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?<br>
>  > <br>
>  > </div>FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote,
> but<br>
>  > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I
> can<br>
>  > see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel
> consulted<br>
>  > about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained<br>
>  > throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.<br>
>  > Turns out this stuff is complicated.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No,
> it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change
> license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of
> the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and
> thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by
> the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued.</div>
>  > <div><br></div><div>Instead what happened is... none of that. I
> appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new
> license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on
> it, but I think they put the cart before the horse.</div>
>  > <div><br></div><div>Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and
> degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight
> answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :)
> ) and click the accept button.</div>
>  > </div>
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > talk mailing list
>  > talk at openstreetmap.org
>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110416/aa063975/attachment-0001.html>