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

[Thomas Davie]

On 19 Apr 2011, at 11:09, David Groom wrote:

>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Davie" <tom.davie at gmail.com>
>> 
>> On 19 Apr 2011, at 09:41, David Groom wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> But again – it's not a matter of voting yes, it's a matter of agreeing to
> 
> Note, I did not use the word "vote".

"It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the "YES" statistics."[David Groom]
Pretty sure you did.

>> contribute under a license.  There's no voting going on here, just a bunch of people letting OSM use their changes after the switch, and a bunch not letting them.  No one is "counting the 70% in the yes vote" – instead, they are saying "this 70% have no impact on us changing to the new license because no data will be deleted if we simply dump these users".
> 
> In your earlier email you said "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".  I'm glad you are now not proposing this should happen

Absolutely I am – the stats are counting the number of people who we will not lose data from in the transition.  We will not lose any data from these people whether they agree or not, so they're safe and should be counted in the stats.

>>> 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.
>> 
>> No one is proposing switching them to the new CTs –
> 
> In an earlier post it was written "which is ignoring the 70% or so of all of those people who never
> edited and can be switched over without incident."  I took this to mean that someone was suggesting they could be switched to the new CT's.

My appologies, maybe they, or I have misunderstood.  I would agree entirely that it would be invalid to decide that these people have agreed to the new license without letting them ever tick a box.  It would however not be invalid simply to block their account and force them to agree, and it would be of no detriment to the project.

Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110419/ff9cb794/attachment-0001.html>