Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Liz wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Gervase Markham wrote: >> After all, if X is 99.99%, then there will probably be very little >> argument - which would be great. >> >> Gerv > > We would all agree that if 99.9% of active contributors agreed to the > changeover then the changeover had a mandate. > > Now Gerv, what is your lower limit? > for > number of contributors overall? > number of active contributors > quantity of data? > > I do not accept that a decision can be made without the numbers being set > *first*. Hi Liz, It's quite complicated. Let's say I said that I was happy with 89% of active contributors. Would I also accept 88.9%? 88.8%? What if the 10% who didn't agree accounted for 50% of the data? Or only 0.2% of the data? What if only 49% of contributors agree, but they account for 97% of the data? How about 48% and 94%? What if 95% of contributors agree, but the 5% who don't had originally added version 1 of 45% of the roads? Or 92%, 8% and 72%? What if the 5% of people who don't agree are evenly spread around the world? What if the 5% of people who don't agree are all in the same country? What if 99% of active contributors agree but only 5% of inactive contributors? What if 95% of the data is OK but only 25% of the contributors agree? Or 94% and 32%? What if it's 98% of the road network and 2% of the turn restrictions? Or 75% of the road network but 100% of the POIs? In all these scenarios there are more than one variable involved. If you want to make an n-dimensional spreadsheet of percentages and colour some of them green and some not, then go ahead, but it's a mammoth task. And given such a spreadsheet everyone would choose slightly different values, so we'll have a lot of spreadsheets too. After lots of discussions and "What if..." scenarios we've all come to the realisation that it's much better to find out what actually happens, and make decisions based on the results. If you keep things to whole percentage numbers there are at least 100,000,000 possible outcomes depending on how we want to slice things, but there's only going to be one scenario that actually happens. Lets work on the process we have, and take it from there. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Andy Allan wrote: > After lots of discussions and "What if..." scenarios we've all come to > the realisation that it's much better to find out what actually > happens, and make decisions based on the results. I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to be. Even a broad statement which said (100 - Y)% = pass (100 - Y - X)% = uncertain (100 - Y - X - Z)% = fail where X, Y, Z are positive numbers would be an improvement on a situation which says "When we get the numbers we'll decide on the cutoff point" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of > democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they > are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to be. It's not a vote. It's a request by the OpenStreetMap Foundation for you personally to consider relicensing your contributions. The only question you're being asked is "do you agree to relicense your contributions?". You are not being asked to vote on what you think should happen to others' contributions - you can't be, they own the rights and neither you nor me nor OSMF can relicense them without their permission. You should tick the box solely according to what you are willing to permit with _your_ contributions. I hate to get all meta, but there seems to be a lot more "fear of fear of the ODbL" than "fear of the ODbL" (not to say the latter doesn't exist). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5286683.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of > > democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they > > are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to be. > > It's not a vote. > > It's a request by the OpenStreetMap Foundation for you personally to > consider relicensing your contributions. The only question you're being > asked is "do you agree to relicense your contributions?". You are not being > asked to vote on what you think should happen to others' contributions - > you can't be, they own the rights and neither you nor me nor OSMF can > relicense them without their permission. You should tick the box solely > according to what you are willing to permit with your contributions. > > I hate to get all meta, but there seems to be a lot more "fear of fear of > the ODbL" than "fear of the ODbL" (not to say the latter doesn't exist). > > cheers > Richard And the arrangement was that whether the licence change went ahead or not depended on how many people agreed to relicense their data So it is still a vote ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Liz wrote: And the arrangement was that whether the licence change went ahead or not depended on how many people agreed to relicense their data Firstly, if anyone ever said "how many people" then that was a mistake, because the number of people is of little interest, it is the amount of their contributions that matters. Secondly, I think Richard Weait found good words for this at SOTM: Nobody in OSMF or the license working group wants to hurt OSM. They are all mappers, they all want the project to prosper. They will not take a decision that is bad for the project. It is ultimately the board of directors of OSMF who will have to decide whether the license change can go ahead and they will make this decision once the situation is clear. They haven't committed themselves to benchmarks but I believe Ulf said at SOTM that it would need to be significantly more than 90% of data relicensed otherwise the change cannot go through. (Unsure whether that was a personal opinion, a LWG statement, or an OSMF statement.) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: > They haven't committed themselves to benchmarks but I believe Ulf said > at SOTM that it would need to be significantly more than 90% of data > relicensed otherwise the change cannot go through. (Unsure whether that > was a personal opinion, a LWG statement, or an OSMF statement.) thankyou for this comment it provides one answer, unfortunately it is unknown whether this is opinion or binding ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 13.07.2010 11:31, Richard Fairhurst wrote: It's not a vote. And exactly that is the problem. Mappers didn't have a say in starting the license change process, and they won't have a way to stop OSMF if they decide that losing half of the data is acceptable. > It's a request by the OpenStreetMap Foundation for you personally to > consider relicensing your contributions. The only question you're > being asked is "do you agree to relicense your contributions?". There's only one step in the license change process where mappers hold any power, and that's their personal agree/decline decision. Its obvious that a passionate mapper will want to have a say in the license change, and that's why they *will* use that decision to influence it. It's their only tool to do so. If there was a guarantee like "if we have to suffer a loss of more than 5% of the data, we will hold a vote among active contributors on how to proceed", then a mapper could rationally separate the personal decision to re-license from the attempt to influence the license change process. I hate to get all meta, but there seems to be a lot more "fear of fear of the ODbL" than "fear of the ODbL" (not to say the latter doesn't exist). There is fear of the OSMF making a bad decision, and that's entirely justified if you consider the refusal to provide *any* meaningful indication of how that decision will look like. Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 13/07/10 11:47, Liz wrote: On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Tobias Knerr wrote: And exactly that is the problem. Mappers didn't have a say in starting the license change process Yes, they did. After about four years of licence discussion among mappers, OSMF held a vote last autumn in which 89% of respondees approved the process (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.h tml). Only members of OSMF had a vote. Yes but people had plenty of notice that this was coming up. In addition, OSMF holds annual elections where anyone can stand and put forward their views, and if elected, work to have them implemented - exactly the same way that your country's democracy works. We realise that. Of course, not everyone is a member of OSMF, but if you don't choose to get involved in the running of the project then you can't really complain if decisions are taken that aren't to your liking. A common statement by those "on the inside". Membership of OSMF costs money. I have enough money for that sort of expense but not everyone does. True it does cost money; but it's not a massive amount. As far as I'm concerned this should be straightforward; CC-BY-SA doesn't work from any perspective, it doesn't provide the protections that I would expect as a mapper and the uncertainty stops people from using the data. Lets relicense our data and put the effort of discussing what if scenarios into getting in touch with those who have not responded. Cheers Chris -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > I hate to get all meta, but there seems to be a lot more "fear of fear of > the ODbL" than "fear of the ODbL" (not to say the latter doesn't exist). This meta fear is mostly due to the fact that the OSMF and LWG are refusing to give even the most vague indication of what this procedure is going to look like and what is acceptable or not. If Richard's statement relayed through Frederik of that at least 90% of data is an absolute minimum becomes binding, (which would still leave a huge amount of room for wiggeling, after all 10% of data would be still 1 1/2 entire Germanys, or nearly all of Europe), much of that fear would likely go away. So please let us have this discussion now and agree on some binding _minimum_ requirements and free up the ODbL decission/vote from these meta issues later on. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5286949.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: If OSMF makes a stupid decision then you can set up freestreetmap.org with the same tools, all the existing data, and the existing licence. If someone wants to have freeworldmap.org, I registered that a while ago in case I had to fork OSM but I'm willing to give it away now ;) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of > > democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they > > are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to be. > > It's not a vote. > > It's a request by the OpenStreetMap Foundation for you personally to > consider relicensing your contributions. The only question you're being > asked is "do you agree to relicense your contributions?". The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed to drag on for another 5 years if necessary. All the time that there is uncertaintly about the license it is harming the project. Deterring potential contributors and confusing prospective users. How much longer should this be allowed to continue? You are not being > asked to vote on what you think should happen to others' contributions - > you > can't be, they own the rights and neither you nor me nor OSMF can relicense > them without their permission. You should tick the box solely according to > what you are willing to permit with _your_ contributions. > > I hate to get all meta, but there seems to be a lot more "fear of fear of > the ODbL" than "fear of the ODbL" (not to say the latter doesn't exist). > > cheers > Richard > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5286683.html > Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Liz wrote: >> >> And the arrangement was that whether the licence change went ahead or not >> depended on how many people agreed to relicense their data > > Firstly, if anyone ever said "how many people" then that was a mistake, > because the number of people is of little interest, it is the amount of > their contributions that matters. I feel that the number of contributors is very important. > Secondly, I think Richard Weait found good words for this at SOTM: Nobody in > OSMF or the license working group wants to hurt OSM. They are all mappers, > they all want the project to prosper. They will not take a decision that is > bad for the project. It is ultimately the board of directors of OSMF who > will have to decide whether the license change can go ahead and they will > make this decision once the situation is clear. Thank you, Frederik. I'd like to repeat here something else that I tried to express during the discussion in Girona, as well. Many of the questions regarding the minimum requirements etc., seem to be based on the uncertainty of "what if?" I wish that I could make that uncertainty go away and tell you what the numbers will be. But I just can't. Anybody who can suggest a way to accurately predict the user numbers and data % and location and the extent where blank spots might arise should help us to allay these fears. But I think that there are simply too many variables to predict the future in a sensible way. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 13/07/2010, at 10:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > Anybody who can suggest a way to accurately predict the > user numbers and data % and location and the extent where blank spots > might arise should help us to allay these fears. But I think that > there are simply too many variables to predict the future in a > sensible way. I agree that the only way were going to find out is by actually getting people to agree/disagree to ODbL+CTs. Personally I think sooner is better, since not knowing means people may be either holding off doing some work or doing work that ends up not able to be used. It's also worth remembering that it's not simply a X% of data is kept and100-X% of data is removed thing. If for example an object is currently at version 6 and the first four editors agree it could be reverted to version 4. Exactly how that works with data consistency I don't know (relation members disappearing, or reverting nodes that were later made part of a way). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed to > drag on for another 5 years if necessary. That's not quite true, and I think you know that. The OSMF isn't exactly likely to have this phase of the relicensing simply dragging on - to start suggesting that it would isn't helpful and is another "fear of the fear of ODbL" thing. > All the time that there is uncertaintly about the license it is harming the > project. Deterring potential contributors and confusing prospective users. > How much longer should this be allowed to continue? I think "allowed to continue" is the wrong phrase. Perhaps "what can I do to help speed things up?" would be better. Maybe working on (more) documentation and outreach, or finding out what the holdup is with allowing existing contributors to choose to relicense and offering to help with that. I know I'm itching to be allowed to indicate my preference, and I know that there's already something like 30,000 newbies who have agreed already. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: > This meta fear is mostly due to the fact that the OSMF and LWG are refusing > to give even the most vague indication of what this procedure is going to > look like and what is acceptable or not. Oh really? They are refusing to give any vague indication? That's news to me. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan Seems pretty detailed to me. Honestly, if we want to have a constructive debate, let's save the FUD and instead approach the issue sensibly. The LWG and the OSMF are some of the most respected people in the entire project, who have been working for literally *years* now on getting the best possible result for the project. Spreading rumours and attacking them isn't helping. If you need some more information, or you think something isn't clear, or if you find something that you want more information on, or if you want to offer to help, then let's keep it constructive and positive. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Andy Allan wrote: > > Oh really? They are refusing to give any vague indication? That's news to > me. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan > > Seems pretty detailed to me. > Ok, I'll quote from that document those section that are relevant to the question at hand: Phase 3: "License Working Group meeting. Assessment of number of Decline responses and number of people who haven't said either way." Pase4: "subject to critical mass" I don't see a definition (or an attempt of one, or an order of magnitude suggestion) of critical mass in that document (or any of the others). So how is this detailed with respect to this point? If anyone can point me to something concrete of what is or is not acceptable for a changeover criterion, I'd be more than happy. Your own, and other responses to this thread however again have shown, that this process appears to be defined no further than "lets see what happens and then once we have the results, this criterion will present it self". It won't! It will still be an n-dimensional decision and be no easier to define, other than that you can change the criteria to make sure the result you want emerges at the end rather than based on rational arguments as you can now. Andy Allan wrote: > > Honestly, if we want to have a constructive debate, let's save the FUD > and instead approach the issue sensibly. The LWG and the OSMF are some > of the most respected people in the entire project, who have been > working for literally *years* now on getting the best possible result > for the project. Spreading rumours and attacking them isn't helping. > I am fully aware of that (and have indeed stated that in several of my emails that I fully respect them and their work and think they are doing a great job!). So perhaps I should should make clearer why I want this information. I want to be able to stand up in the forums, the mailinglist threads, in the diary entries or where ever else the flames might appear and currently are appearing to try and convince people that the change to OdBL is necessary and will change little for them, so no need for fear and that the OSMF is not evil. However with respect to the two currently imho most controversial points that keep on coming up i.e. critical mass and data loss and the contributor terms, that allow PD thus ruling out most current imports and thus potentially all subsequent manual work derived off it, I don't feel I have anything other to say than "trust OSMF, they have the best of the project at hart." And a debate where that is the main argument feels rather unsatisfactory to me when trying to defend something! Of cause, in the end it will unfortunately boil down to trust, as (arbitrary number) 99% of all OSM contributors aren't international IP lawyers and can't assess the situation fully for them selves, but at least we can try and reduce the need for trust (and at the same time build this trust) by e.g. defining some minimum limits. Thats all I am asking for. These are the two most important points, as the other points regarding OdBL it self I think do have enough rational arguments to defend them and thus with the hard work of everyone, people are starting to accept the necessity. Andy Allan wrote: > > If you need some more information, or you think something isn't clear, > or if you find something that you want more information on, or if you > want to offer to help, then let's keep it constructive and positive. > That is exactly what I am hoping this thread to be about. The additional information of how it is decided, by whom, with what majority and based on what criteria, if the licensing change can go ahead or not. I want this information in order to ensure that that the change can go through successfully. And I think this thread alone has already shown (together with previous discussions) that there is a need for this discussion. E.g. Frederik said (paraphrased and exaggerated) it is about the data, not the contributors, then Richard comes and sais nearly the exact opposite (see the statements on talk-au for more details). So we aren't talking about 89.95% vs 89.96%, or other fine details, but about fundamental discrepancies of how this "critical mass" will be defined! Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5288271.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: [ ... ] > And I think this thread alone has already shown (together with previous > discussions) that there is a need for this discussion. E.g. Frederik said > (paraphrased and exaggerated) it is about the data, not the contributors, > then Richard comes and sais nearly the exact opposite (see the statements on > talk-au for more details). So we aren't talking about 89.95% vs 89.96%, or > other fine details, but about fundamental discrepancies of how this > "critical mass" will be defined! I believe you are referring to my assertion that community is more important than data. I said: "My vision of OpenStreetMap sees the community, the contributors, as very important; probably twice as important as the data, but perhaps an order of magnitude more important." I hope that was clearly my opinion, not policy of $anybody. I respect Frederik's opinion in many, many areas, but on this one I'll respectfully try to use his own words against him. (He'll probably use additional information and relentless logic to vaporize me, but here goes,) It was at a State of Germany presentation by Frederik that I learned that a huge amount of data in Germany is renewed / edited every year. What was that number, Frederik, 65%? I think he even joked that Germany could be reset, and remapped in about a year and a half. So you can replace data with a great community. You might ignore community if you have a lot of data, but then you end up with a lot of unsupported data that goes stale, nobody to build cool tools like WheelMap http://wheelmap.org/ and a bunch of people thinking, "If only we as a community could build a great, free map of everything." Kai, I don't mean to ignore the rest of your questions. I'd like certainty too. Should the LWG back itself into a corner by saying x%, y%, then ask forgiveness if the percentages look good but $region is blanked? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: > this process appears to be defined no further than "lets see what happens > and then once we have the results, this criterion will present it self". It > won't! It will still be an n-dimensional decision and be no easier to > define, No it won't. When we know the results it will be a binary decision - yes, or no. We will have all the information to hand. We will know which countries will be affected, which contributors (if any) have refused and for what reason, and so on. There won't be any "if we have X% of Y" things, because we'll have the results. It's the only way to make the problem tractable. > other than that you can change the criteria to make sure the result > you want emerges at the end rather than based on rational arguments as you > can now. That's quite an offensive accusation, and I hope it was aimed at me rather than the LWG. Thanks, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Andy Allan wrote: > other than that you can change the criteria to make sure the result >> you want emerges at the end rather than based on rational arguments as >> you >> can now. > > That's quite an offensive accusation, and I hope it was aimed at me > rather than the LWG. > It was not aimed at anyone particular, other than at human psychology. However, if I did offend someone, I would like to deeply apologise to them. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5288873.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
