Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
I thought I'd throw in my $0.02 into the discussion as well. First of all, I think it is good that we are having this discussion and I hope that eventually we can come to a OSMF sanction conclusion (set of community guidelines) one way or another. Overall, I think the route via produced works is the correct way to go here. For reverse geocoding I think declaring things as produced work is pretty well justified. The process is to take a geographic coordinate as input. This input is then turned, with the help of a bunch of complex algorithms(e.g. nominatum), into a (textual) rendering of an extract of the openstreetmap data. This textual rendering is then stored and eventually displayed to a human observer. This is nearly exactly equivalent to the process of rendering map tiles. I.e. you take four geographic coordinates (bounding box) as input. This input is then turned, with the help of a bunch of complex algorithms (e.g. mapnik), into a (bitmap) rendering of an extract of the openstreetmap data. This bitmap rendering is then stored and eventually displayed to a human observer. Given that map tiles are universally considered as produced works, so should imho be the result of reverse geocoding. As such, this should then also not trigger share-a-like. Just like one could take a proprietary database, use the stored lat/lon values in that database and render a 256x256 pixel image of the map for each entry of the database and store it back into the proprietary database without infecting the database with the ODbL share-a-like, one should be able to do the same with reverse geocoding. Imho anything that is intended for (more or less) direct consumption by humans is a produced work. For forward geocoding, the picture gets a bit more murky though, as the distinction between what is for human consumption and what is data, and thus a derived database, is much less clear cut. If you geocode an address and then all you do with the the resulting lat/lon is to display it in some form, then that is imho clearly also a produced work and thus shields things from the ODbL share-a-like requirement. However, once you start manipulating and computing with those lat/lon values. E.g. to calculate the average distance between all of the POIs in your proprietary db, the definition of produced work probably starts breaking down, because the output of the geocoding process is no longer the end product. Where exactly that line is though between produced work and derived database, I am not sure is obvious, and thus the intention of making the license clearer would unfortunately not really be achieved. Generally, I would consider my self as a proponent of share-a-like, but at least to me personally, I would consider all of the use cases presented in the proposed community guidelines as acceptable and within the spirit of share-a-like requirement for the OSM database. But it probably needs a bit more explanation of what you can and cannot do with the derived lat/lon values of the geocoding process. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Updated-geocoding-community-guideline-proposal-tp5811077p5811672.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote So the way I see it, if there's any (substantial) addition of external geo-data along the way, then that addition creates a derivative database, before the produced work is created. So if you want to publicly use this database (or any produced work based on it) then either the derivative database must be shared-alike, or the algorithm used to produce it and any additional input data must be shared. In the case of any substanitial amount of geocoding, you are clearly having to add additional geographic data to the OSM data in order to do the geocoding. I would interpret it as quite the opposite and you are not adding any substantial amount of geographical information. You do query the db with external geo-data. But if the geocoder gives you a result, the information was (in this form) already in the OSM database and so you haven't added anything. If the data was not already in the OSM database, then the geocoder will not spit out any result and thus you haven't created any derived database (or anything else for that matter). So in either case, the result(s) from the geocoding process are pure OpenStreetMap data and there is no additional external geo-data added to the output. Therefore this process then also does not trigger the share-a-like clause in it self. And so as long as you don't use the resultant lat/lon in a way incompatible with the definition of produced work, geocoding itself is fine. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Updated-geocoding-community-guideline-proposal-tp5811077p5811673.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Hi, I have just seen that Creative-Commons has released a first draft of their new 4.0 license suit and thought it might be of interest to others on this list. ( http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 ) The draft for 4.0 now explicitly licenses database rights and addresses licensing of databases. However, it does not extend restrictions through contract where copyright and database rights do not restrict usage in the first place. It also does not have the concept of produced works. The new draft furthermore addresses attribution in massive collaboration projects more flexibly than previous licenses by not having to attribute all authors if the project wishes so. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Creative-Commons-4-0-first-draft-tp5614244p5614244.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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
jaakkoh wrote Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of verification (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's own surveying. Furthermore, we are currently doing that on a large scale with our own data. We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is legal and is not covered by the share alike clause of the license. jaakkoh wrote Perhaps we're going into nitty-gritty over the term verification, here? Well, perhaps we do need to actually define the term much better to be able to judge if that is a violation of copyright / the license. If their definition of verification e.g does not go beyond the definition of verification of CC-BY-SA / ODbL data, which has thus presumably been deemed acceptable, then it wouldn't be an extra grant (which wouldn't really be possible) but simply a clarification as various of the other community guidelines that have been defined. If in turn this would lead to UMP accepting to allow to keep their data, that would be a major win for all! Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5549631.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] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst lt;rich...@systemed.netgt; wrote: Robert Whittaker wrote: A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free and Open license without the need for further checks. No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in November 2010 and subsequently adopted. 1.2.x say: If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). Frederik Ramm wrote: On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote: Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even *begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to tell us what license restriction his externally-sourced data might be under? Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current license and thus clause 2 only applies to the rights held by the contributor and not to all data contributed by the contributor, it might be a good time to think about the practical implications of this. As it currently stands, I am kind of with Frederik, that this basically effectively rules out any future relicensing, as it is impossible to know which rights (and restrictions) exist in the data at the moment. Nevertheless, I think it is a reasonably good compromise between the position of making it possible to use data other than PD data and still having the flexibility to relicense if there really is a necessity in future. So the question is what can we do to make this compromise practically feasible? Frederik Ramm wrote: This situation could be made a little less of a problem by requesting that anyone who contributes data that is not available for arbitrary relicensing under the CT (i.e. any free and open license etc.etc.) should flag such data in a well-defined way. Then, in a future relicensing process we could assume that any data not flagged can be relicensed at will, and only data that is flagged needs to be more closely investigated. I think this will be key. For all data, it needs to be clear a) who holds any rights in the data and b) what exact restrictions apply to the data. For all data originally collected by an osm contributor this is clearly stated in clause 2. But there currently is no way to flag data as having additional restrictions applied (because it is a third party import with an attached license) The best we currently have is the wiki import catalogue[2], but a) not all imports are registered there and b) a lot of entries are useless with respect to the exact licensing terms of the data and what agreements exist. The most logical place perhaps to record such info is the OSM account. All data that is contributed to OSM for which not all rights stated in section 2 of the contributor terms are given to OSMF, needs to be contributed under a special osm account to which the exact licensing requirements are attached and contact details of the original rights holder. It is to some degree already the recommended practice, but it is in no way enforced. For future relicensing to remain feasible, this would however need to be enforced. For existing accounts, that have previously mixed data, it might need a more fine grained possibility e.g. per changeset, to parcel out the rights held in the data again. Frederik Ramm wrote: It is too late to upgrade the CT with such a requirement, but we could still set up a community norm to that effect. I don't think it is too late to upgrade the CT, to clarify this and make it explicit that you need to use a special osm account with a link to the license if you cannot grant all rights mentioned in clause 2 and can only comply with clause 1. These are local changes (unlike any changes to e.g. the voting requirements), so there shouldn't be a problem if different accounts use different versions of the CT, like it is already the case with version 1.0 and 1.2.4. Kai [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_121dzjmk5c5 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6555428.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] CTs are not full copyright assignment
Tom Hughes-3 wrote: If you have a better way of defining active contributor that is workable then please tell us what it is. One could have given voting rights to all people who have once reached active contributor status and retain sufficient interest in the project to keep their email address up to date and respond to the vote within 3 weeks. This way, one would also have no need to write an automated script to move a lone node around every month to ensure one retains voting rights. However, Frederick is correct, that this kind of change to the CT (i.e. definitions of who is allowed to vote and how) is indeed very hard, as it would be incompatible with the current CT, as it is a global change rather than a change just effecting the local contributor. I.e. one can't do what has been done with the upgrade from CT version 1 to 1.2.4 (i.e. different people are on different versions of the CT), or what could be done to e.g. clarify the meaning of the combination of clause 1 and 2 of the CT with respect to third party rights. What could however be done without requiring to reask everyone to update to the latest CT, would be to include a sentence in that clause along the line that OSMF may only ban you from editing if there is clear indication of vandalism to the data or if other technical missuse can be shown. Thus political banning of people who don't agree with the OSMF will no longer be allowed and thus couldn't affect who is eligible for voting. Then one wouldn't need to rely on the sysadmins being reasonable and the sysadmins would not be in the awkward position of having to decide if OSMF is being reasonable or not. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6530437.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] Phase 4 and what it means
Richard Weait wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen lt;md...@xs4all.nlgt; wrote: Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move? Current respondents are far above 2/3 accepting the new license and contributor terms. It is kind of ironic that people who use the accept the CT question to vote on the transition to ODBL get told that this is not a vote if they think ODBL is the correct licence for OSM but that they should only indicate if they will accept that their personal contributions can be used under the CT or even get told that they are poisonous people for withdrawing their old data rather than just accepting and walking away from OSM if they don't agree with the licence, to later hear the argument that X percent were in favor of the new license so there you have your majority vote. These two questions are very different! 1) Can and do you agree to relicence your personal contributions under the new CT, irrespective of what your own opinion is of what the best license is for OpenStreetMap 2) Do you think moving from CC-BY-SA to ODBL is in the best interest of OpenStreetMap as a whole, independent of if you can accept the CT for your personal contributions so far These questions could and should have been kept separate and there is no technical reasons, why the 2/3 vote can not be applied to the current transition from CC-BY-SA to ODBL after people have agreed to the CT. But I am repeating my self... Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6447563.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
[OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
I'd like to link to a recent interesting article on the OSM licensing change on LWN (Linux Weekly News) as I haven't seen it be mentioned anywhere yet. http://lwn.net/Articles/422493/ It also has a 60 entry long comment section. Although much is a rehash of the the endless debates on OSMs own communication channels, there are also a set of comments by user mlinksva from Creative Commons (e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/422754/) that seem to bring points to light that would suggest a possible, quite significant, change of attitude (or at least a perceived change) of CC towards open data licensing and OSM. I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't missrepresent anyone. - CC does not (no longer) think data should be PD and would be happy with copyleft on data. The statements of CC saying data should be PD were from science commons for scientific data only and was a misscommunication that it was perceived as general CC viewpoint - CC does care about data and either sees their licensing as potentially valid for data or intend to make it work for data - CC is (or will be) working on a new version 4 of their CC licenses, which will apparently make every effort to address the needs of the open data ecosystem What exactly this all means, if it is indeed a shift away from the position CC appears to have held previously, why it comes to light now and if it has any relevance to the license change process for OSM I have no idea. But perhaps we will find out more about this soon from CC as mlinksva mentioned he wanted to follow up on these points publicly. Their wiki page on version 4 ( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4 ) at least is still entirely empty. So it probably isn't anything around the corner or of any certainty yet. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LWN-article-on-license-change-and-Creative-Commons-tp5945925p5945925.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] How to deal with CC 2.0 data imports? Proposal Dual licensing of data under odbl-1.0
JohnSmitty wrote: That may not be enough, as they would have to agree to allow OSM to relicense it in future, not just agree to ODBL: There appear to be some interesting thoughts about this in the most recent LWG meeting minutes ( https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_89cczk73gk ) in the Contributor Terms Revision section: e.g. If you want to import data copyrighted by others or where they are exerting a copyright over data that you have derived by a method such as tracing, the copyright should be compatible with ODbL 1.0. You do not need to guarantee that the copyright will be compatible with future licenses as may be adopted under clause 4 below, but you should be aware that it may then be necessary to delete such Content. This might address some of the worries of having to delete imported compatible datasets immediately. But I guess we will have to see what happens with this revision first to understand its consequences and if they are changes or simply clarifications. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-How-to-deal-with-CC-2-0-data-imports-Proposal-Dual-licensing-of-data-under-odbl-1-0-tp5686599p5687589.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] OS Opendata the new license
Grant Slater wrote: Reply was that on b) explicit permission to sub-license is granted by their license with the conditions that required attribution is given and sub licensees keep said attribution. With this response b) was seen as compatible. Under a) it was advised there is an issue of sub-licensing. Asking source author for permission to contribute under CT was an option; as was to keep distributing said specific data under license. Item b) is still open AFAIK. I am not a lawyer, and many subtile things get lost in paraphrasing responses. But you state: and sub _licensees_ keep said attribution. The CT don't appear to guarantee that. Clause 4, states ...OSMF agrees to attribute You... It nowhere sais the license agrees to attribute, just that OSMF as an entity agrees to attribute. Assume for the moment the following scenario: OSMF move OSM to ODbL and CT. Now at some later stage all active contributors have a vote and decided by 2/3 majority to release data PD. Clearly a free and open license and allowed under CT. Clause 4 still stands so OSMF itself still has to attribute. However, now someone founds OSMF2 and OSMF is allowed to die. OSMF2 can take all data, as the data is PD and does not have to attribute. OSMF would still have to attribute, but it no longer exists. At no point did OSMF violate its contract with the contributors. OSMF2 is entirely separate from OSMF, so no contractual obligations between OSMF and its contributors carry over to OSMF2. Therefore, there is no attribution requirement left in the data. As there is always a possibility of OSMF sometime in the future stopping to exist. (Forks actually have the same effect), any protection of the data can't be part of the CT, but appears to have to be part of the license. As I said, I am not a lawyer and might be missing something obviouse (like how attribution chaining works in CC-BY and OS data license) Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5543986.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] New contributors and some data sources are not allowed under the CTs but too easy to access.
JohnSmitty wrote: In any case going forward unless something changes with the CTs many many many more people will be effected by this, does the OSM APIs have the ability to indicate if the account has agreed to the CTs and then update editors to prevent certain layers from being shown. Obviously this wouldn't prevent anyone with enough determination in using Nearmap or any other source of data which would be in conflict with the CTs but it would help newbies from making innocent mistakes... A very similar mater appears to arise in a slightly different context. Let's for the moment assume that the ODbL and CT were compatible with CC-BY (like Ordnance Survey StreetView), NearMap and other attribution licenses that have been used and thus can in general remain in Potlatch, Josm and the other editiors. That however does still leave the substantial portion of mappers who have ticked the I declare my edits to be PD option, which surely makes them no longer compatible with these sources. These mappers therefore then presumably can not use those sources without being in breach of contract or license. So it seems editors will need to keep track of background image licenses anyway and with what they are compatible in order to warn or prevent the user in an adequate way. Luckily, the user details API call has recently received an update to include the information of if users have accepted the CT and if they declared their edits PD. Which means editors can be updated so that they only display the options compatible with the users current choice of license. But yes, I think editors should be updated as soon as possible as to not easily trap newbies and those mappers who don't want to be concerned with legal matters into doing something illegal. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-New-contributors-and-some-data-sources-are-not-allowed-under-the-CTs-but-too-easy-to--tp5441594p5441934.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
Rob Myers wrote: If we are allowed to arbitrarily redefine how votes should be counted then, as I say, only 6.05% of the total possible electorate voted against relicencing. There appear to be some indications that the LWG are at least considering a final vote amongst all active contributors. If indeed they decide to hold that final vote, then all the argument about the previous votes if it does or does not represent the community if it is or is not a majority becomes a mute point. In that case (should it be successful) there would both be clear statement by the community that they accept OdBL (i.e. they relicense the data) and that the majority of active contributors agree that the consequences are clearly acceptable (vote for flicking the switch over to OdBL). That would allow everyone to draw their own conclusions if the relicensing should go ahead and particularly based on all possible facts (unlike any of the other votes that (could) have happened beforehand) That way, it does not matter if there are 1 different criteria by 1 different contributors and decisions, as there will be a clear way to arbitrate between them to ensure one single outcome that is clearly acceptable to the majority. In a case of such a vote, if you think the process was fine so far, then great. And if you think the process was wrong and unfair, then well it was unfortunate and OSMF should learn from it, but it is in the past and the future is what matters. So again no point on arguing about it any more. Lets try and make this process (what ever the outcome) no more damaging to the community as it already is. So how about we give the LWG a bit of time to digest this thread, discuss the possibility of a vote right at the end and wait for a clear statement by them. (After all, they are only voluteers too and only meet once a week, so they will need a bit of time) Having endless discussions on if what is in the past was right or wrong on the other hand is of limited productive value. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5279719p5301222.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
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
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
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
