[OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[john whelan]

The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
from people who have accepted the new license.

Its a lawyer thing and I'm not even sure that in the US OSM has a solid
case anyway.  Street names are facts for example.

Cheerio John

On 13 December 2011 16:03, Graham Jones <grahamjones139 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone?
>> I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where
>> they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1
>> path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the
>> ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't
>> be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated
>> by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision -
>> shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the
>> originator positioned them? Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless
>> destruction and that makes me really quite sad.
>>
>> I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do
> this.   Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to  this and think
> about 'reasonableness'?
>
> I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone
> who has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a
> shame, but it is their choice.
>
> From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly -
> I gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand
> earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither
> accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be
> deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence
> change?
>
> I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor
> declining the terms:
>
>    - They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can
>    not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an
>    awkward case, but it is up to them to make their intentions clear.
>    - They left the project having made their contribution and are now not
>    contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that they do
>    not respond.
>    - They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so
>    are not answering their emails.
>
> In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that the last two have the
> best interests of the project at heart and do not want to have their
> contributions deleted, so they should be retained.  If at some point they
> contact us to say that they object to their contributions being in the
> database, then yes, delete them, but leave them there until they do.
>
> A pragmatic approach along these lines would seem quite reasonable to me,
> and would save a lot of un-necessary re-work - deleting contributions of
> people that we can not make contact with just seems excessive, and is
> probably not what the non-contactable contributors wanted anyway.
>
> Graham.
>
>
> --
> Graham Jones
> Hartlepool, UK.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20111213/ad17c84b/attachment-0001.html>