In general, I think you completely miss the point. Wherever you might like me to go, I am part of the community, so are all of the other people who disagree with you.
If a small number of people coming up with the CTs wants to ignore me and others for the sake of getting something out, then I don’t think they are acting in the best interests of the community. *I* can compromise to form something agreeable, can you/they? On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:54:08AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 12/10/10 03:09, Simon Ward wrote: > >We are expected to give OSMF broad rights and trust them to do what’s > >good, yet if a contributor should attempt to assert their rights it is > >deemed unjust, unfair to the community, or whatever other daemonising > >you can think of. The balance is wrong, and it needs to be more towards > >the people than any central body, including OSMF. > > This is not how I see it. I think the balance needs to be towards > the project as a whole, not towards the individual and his whims. […] > I think it is obvious that the more you "assert" and the less you > "grant", the less you trust the community. I've been called a > communist for this but I believe that in our project, it is > necessary to drop the selfish thought of your contribution being > your personal property that you need to "assert rights over" because > you cannot trust the community to do the right thing with it. That’s really just a load of bollocks, and can be turned on its head. In fact, I swore I just said that the other way around. Oh yes, it’s in the bit of my email you quoted above! Anyway, the rights are granted to the OSMF, who on the face of it are acting on behalf of the community, but they are *not* the community. If we’re trusting the community, which, believe it or not, is something I wholly support, then there doesn’t need to be a broad rights grant, and there doesn’t need to be a relicensing clause, because if it ever again comes to the point that we need to change things like this, then the whole community can be called upon to decide, not some abitrary fraction of it, not based on whether they are still actively contributing (old contributors are still contributors). > If you are not prepared to *give* your data to OSM - if you'd rather > only *lend* your data so you can sit and watch how the project > develops and withdraw your contribution should they take what you > view to be a wrong step in the future - then maybe you aren't ready > for a large, interconnected, collaborative project like this. I’m not prepared to give my data to OSM while it insists it needs these broad rights. I am prepared to give my data to OSM when I feel it will act within constraints. The permissions I grant to OSM are the same as the permissions I grant to anyone else when individually licensing, and they are given when certain conditions are met, like when individually licensing. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
