[OSM-talk] the 70%, was " License graph"

[David Groom]

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Thomas Davie" <tom.davie at gmail.com>
> To: "David Murn" <davey at incanberra.com.au>
> Cc: <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
>
>
>
> On 19 Apr 2011, at 01:15, David Murn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:53 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
>>> ...which is ignoring the 70% or so of all of those people who never
>>> edited and can be switched over without incident.
>>
>> That sounds like the thinking of the parties in a real vote, 'if
>> everyone who didnt vote, voted for us, we would have wiped the floor'
>> Changing that 70% doesnt have any 'incident' but they can hardly be
>> counted has casting their vote either way.  This means that if 30% are
>> active users, 3.8% means just over 12% of people have voted.
>
> The thing you're not understanding is that this isn't a vote.  It's an
> agreement to distribute your work under a new license.

No, the CT's  are an agreement to contribute work, not to distribute it.


> That 70% *have* agreed to distribute their work under the new license.  It
> is entirely valid for the camp that wants to move to the ODbL sooner
> rather than later to count the 70% in their stats, because accepting the
> new license is all that matters, not some imaginary war between "yes" and
> "no".
>

It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the "YES" statistics.
Its valid to say all the people who have never edited would automatically
have agreed to the CT's, any more than it is valid to say that all the
people who have never edited would not have agreed to the CT's.

Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the  new CT's without
incident.  OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing to the new CT's,
but to simply switch their accounts to the new CT's on the assumption they
would agree, and it doesn't affect ant data currently in the OSM database,
is not right.

David