[OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

Mike Dupont jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com
Sat Jan 28 15:23:20 GMT 2012


Well since you mentioned my name,  h4ck3rm1k3

wanted to point out my blog post :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777

I do not want to harm the project or the people in Kosovo and Albania
where I personally did much work there.

And considering that the team there is very healthy and continuing in
Kosovo, I do not see any further personal work of mine being needed in
Kosovo, I am not going to waste any more time or money on Albania, I
do not see *any* chance there to start a community that is
sustainable.

you can re license *my* personal work, I don't care about that, and
imports, you will have to just review them yourselves.

dont expect me to be wasting time on understanding your new license
scheme or checking compatibility, and I am not going to agree to any
contributor terms.  working on hosting my own changesets in blogposts,
we will talk in some years about creative commons compatibility.

spent enough time on this license stuff, and wish you all the best of luck.

mike


On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high.
>
> We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1]
>
> Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree in
> any form,  have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is
> also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old anon
> contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can.
>
> argath                  7 025 025  100% POI import as far as I am aware
> ABS2006            2 498 993  100% boundary import
> anon edits              560 467   (may be too high as some previous anon
> mappers have actually agreed)
> h4ck3rm1k3          348 274   High but unknown import proportion in a
> geographically concentrated area
>
> This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a few
> other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and that
> is the one percent right there.
>
> Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway ways
> might be better for the standard you are suggesting.
>
> There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive
> over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to map
> what appears to be already there.
>
> I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the respective
> communities agree.  But that is only rational if we have consensus that
> critical mass is here.
>
> Mike
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats
>
> [2] http://odbl.de/world.html
>
>
> On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote:
>>
>> I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %.
>> There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is
>> known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch.
>> Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the
>> exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid.
>>
>> Lukas (LM_1)
>>
>> 2012/1/27 Michael Collinson<mike at ayeltd.biz>:
>>
>
> [cut]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org



More information about the talk mailing list