[OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[Richard Fairhurst]

jaakkoh wrote:
> This may well be my first post to the talk list 

Brave soul. :) (But welcome, seriously.)

> Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2 
> I'm seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange, 
> too).

Don't get too disheartened.

To take your second point first, in my experience most people are actually
pretty amenable to being contacted. A lot will simply not have noticed the
original mail. Others may have seen it but not realised that it's really
something they need to respond to. Personal contact saying "hi, I'd really
like to keep your data" means a lot.

When you do manage to contact them, the 98.5% agree/1.5% split (of those
who've responded thus far) suggests that in most cases they'll be happy for
the data to continue through to ODbL+CT - so it'll probably be ok.

If not, as David Groom mentioned, the idea of allowing people to say "I
relicense these bits, but not those" was once mooted - along the lines of
what you suggested. There wasn't much take-up but I see no reason why it
couldn't be resurrected if really needed. It doesn't even need to be part of
the formal relicensing process: you or I or anyone could write a tool that
deleted a problematic object, and recreated it with a clean history, _if_
all the contributors gave their permission to the tool author (and
documented the permission). But I do genuinely think it won't be necessary:
most people are happy to click 'Agree' if you ask.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6505963.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.