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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/16/2011 04:13 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> But, as you said, that poll was unofficial, only included 500 people,
> and if I remember correctly had some very confusing options at first.

My guess is that more than 10.000 people have been informed of the poll 
(via the lists I mentioned). The fact that only 500 decided to state 
their opinion can hardly be counted against the poll. Why do we need 
"official"?

> This sounds an awful lot like what happened, but instead of
> offering a "Yes/No" at the end we only have the option of "Yes I agree
> to the new license/No, and I realize I can't edit the map anymore". We
> seem to have skipped the crucial middle step.

I'm pretty sure that we would have a ton of people complain that Yes/No 
is not ok, they also want to be able to say "Yes but only if X", "No 
unless Y", or something. And what would the question have been? "Yes I 
agree to the new license / no I accept that anyone can rip off our data 
because it is unprotected", maybe?

> For example, in my student government
> groups if someone wanted to change the constitution or institute a new
> by-law they first had to come together with other people of a similar
> persuasion, come up with a document that enumerated the changes, then
> present it to the general assembly to be decided on with a vote. From my
> point of view OSMF and LWG have come up with a proposal for change and
> are immediately implementing it without querying anyone else.

I understand all of that. However, in many of these situations you have 
working status quo, and then someone wants to make a change, and they 
have to answer the question "why make the change at all, what 
improvements does it bring, what's the reward"?

We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked 
to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working 
status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. In licensing terms, this 
house is on fire. Day after day we're violating our own license and 
making promises that we cannot keep. Anyone who is *interested* in the 
matter can, and has, involve themselves in the process, read about 
reasons, participate in discussion, and so on. Anyone who is not 
interested has a right to be not interested, but they should not expect 
to be served the explanation on a silver platter, much less be asked: 
"Do you think the house is on fire yes/no?" - their input would not be 
helpful at all.

And this basic concept carries on further; in this issue everyone can 
have a say but it is not a democracy where the voice of someone who is 
totally un-informed counts as much as anyone else's. You have to get 
involved to be heard. And I don't think this is necessarily bad.

Bye
Frederik