[OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
balrogg at gmail.com
Thu Feb 9 17:10:09 GMT 2012
On 9 February 2012 06:17, Nick Hocking <nick.hocking en gmail.com> wrote:
> Graham Jones wrote
> "I completely agree - we should assume that no response is equivalent to
> consent - if they complain about this action we can delete their data when
> they show enough interest to actually decline the licence/terms. Qui tacet
> There is one problem with this.
> There are people who are remaining "undecided" so that
> remappers will leave their work alone in the vain hope that the
> undecider votes in our favour.
Yay for speculation.
First of all the only difference between undecided and declined is
that if someone declines you know that they've seen the message and
know about the OSM's change process. I think this is the only purpose
of the "decline" button, which at the beginning I thought was
spurious. I honestly found it strange that RichardF would insist on
80n selecting one of the options.. really, what's the point?
Specially since you know 80n knows about the change.
> Then at the last moment they will decline, thus ensuring maximum
> damage to the OSM database on April 1st.
Why should they decline? It will make no difference whatsoever at that point.
> So, If we decide to now accept an undeciders work then remappers will
> surely leave it alone and then when the undecider turns into a decliner
> on or after the changeover date, then they will have succedded in damaging
> our database.
> Therefore if we decide to auto-accept an undeciders work, this decision
> must be irreversible and must be taken soon (within the week).
> Otherwise we should remap the undeciders roads as fast as possible.
> I guess (IANAL) that maybe if we do take over the undeciders work and
> they complain, then we could remove that data at OUR liesure by remapping it
> one way at a time,over the next year or so.
I'm not sure LWG would like that since they became allergic to
CC-By-SA. Having any CC-By-SA data in the database would mean that
OSMF has to comply with the share-alike clause and I think there
exists a probability that a court would order OSMF to do that (only
publish osm data under CC-By-SA) in case of a conflict in court.
But then it doesn't seem like the LWG is willing to really clear the
database of CC-By-SA-only work, so it may be the case anyway.
Of course if you say that OSM is a joint work (as Russ Nelson
suggested) and anyone can re-license under any license they like so
far as they share the profits then it doesn't matter because anyone
can use OSM under CC-By-SA. But I also think that there are enough
examples of share-alike licenses actually working, that a court
anywhere might not accept the "joint work" interpretation.
More information about the talk