Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
Andrzej, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1) A creates road; B edits road; C edits road. 2) A creates road; B deletes road; C undeletes road. Well, I can kind of see a problem here (and am not in the states now :-) ). In both situations the final version is a derived work of version A or B, or even a copy. User C obtained version B under CC-By-SA, but claims to hold copyright of it and grant all the rights to OSMF when she uploads her change. That's not how it works. If what you sketched here was true, then anything in OSM that I have edited last would be PD[*] because I say so. But in reality, changing the license of something in OSM generally requires consent from all those who ever modified it. In some cases it could be argued that changing the license of something requires even the consent of those having modified neighboring objects (e.g. you draw a road junction, I add the pub - could I have added the pub without your preceding work?). In other cases it could be argued that changing the license of something requires no consent because the change in question is primitive enough not to warrant copyright (e.g. a bot corrects a spelling mistake, does the bot operator now have to be asked about license change for this object?). There may also be cases where an object is so thoroughly changed that this effectively amounts to deleting the old and re-creating a new object; in these cases one could say that the creator of the original object has lost any claim to copyright on that particular object. I trust that the license working group will have discussed, or will be discussing, these fringe cases and come to a decision about them and publish that. But again, in general the sequence of changes to an object does not matter; whether you were the last person to edit the object or someone else edited it after you does not change the fact that you are one of the copyright holders and have to be asked about the license change. Bye Frederik [*] I have very limited patience with people discounting the concept of PD just because it doesn't fit in with the legal reality in their respective jurisdiction. Replace PD by CC0 or any long-winded phrase that basically says that the author doesn't care if that makes you happy; I'm also very fond of http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On 13 May 2010 13:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Andrzej, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1) A creates road; B edits road; C edits road. 2) A creates road; B deletes road; C undeletes road. Well, I can kind of see a problem here (and am not in the states now :-) ). In both situations the final version is a derived work of version A or B, or even a copy. User C obtained version B under CC-By-SA, but claims to hold copyright of it and grant all the rights to OSMF when she uploads her change. That's not how it works. If what you sketched here was true, then anything in OSM that I have edited last would be PD[*] because I say so. But in reality, changing the license of something in OSM generally requires consent from all those who ever modified it. That's exactly what I'm saying -- I assumed user C is a new user, registered after the recent change, and B an old user. So by uploading any change, user C confirms that they hold the copyright to the work and transfer all rights to OSMF. But it's obvious they don't because they just downloaded the previous version from OSM (usually), and they may be in violation of the sharealike in CC-By-SA (assuming CC-By-SA was valid for data). That means that newly registered users as of two days ago can't make any edits other than those exceptional edits where a new version is a total remake of the object, not deriving from the previous versions. Especially they can't undelete things, under the contributor terms they agreed to. Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
Hi, andrzej zaborowski wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying -- I assumed user C is a new user, registered after the recent change, and B an old user. So by uploading any change, user C confirms that they hold the copyright to the work and transfer all rights to OSMF. But it's obvious they don't because they just downloaded the previous version from OSM (usually), and they may be in violation of the sharealike in CC-By-SA (assuming CC-By-SA was valid for data). C only makes a statement about his (own) contributions which, in the case of an object downloaded and edited only, make up *part* of the whole object. Just because I download your motorway and add some detail, the motorway does not become my contribution. Just as I make a statement about my contributions when I say it's all PD; if I load an object that someone else has created and apply my modifications to it, then my modifications may be PD but that doesn't make the whole object PD. If the contributor terms are worded in a way that makes people think they have to grant OSMF the do-what-you-want right for any object they touch (rather than for just their part in the state of the object) then that should be cleared up. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On 13 May 2010 14:18, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, andrzej zaborowski wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying -- I assumed user C is a new user, registered after the recent change, and B an old user. So by uploading any change, user C confirms that they hold the copyright to the work and transfer all rights to OSMF. But it's obvious they don't because they just downloaded the previous version from OSM (usually), and they may be in violation of the sharealike in CC-By-SA (assuming CC-By-SA was valid for data). C only makes a statement about his (own) contributions which, in the case of an object downloaded and edited only, make up *part* of the whole object. Just because I download your motorway and add some detail, the motorway does not become my contribution. Okay, you may be right, I assumed the contents of your contibution are the contents of osmChange xml you upload, but the contributor terms page doesn't make it clear. So you say that when you undelete an object, your only contribution is the setting of the visible flag. I think it still could be argued that in majority of cases your edit is a derived work of the original work. Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
It's pretty bonkers. Anyone is welcome to join the LWG call each week or read the minutes, and be as involved as you like. License changes will always throw up people who don't like it, and the LWG has been going through peoples legitimate and illegitimate concerns for two years I think it's been now. We've had lawyers checking everything at every step of the way. So it's very frustrating for those involved after so much effort to finally be able to make one step towards completion, and have people throw stones like this. Because, after all if you do your homework CCBYSA is a total mess for OSM and all the LWG is trying to do is fix that mess. Yours c. Steve On May 11, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Peter Batty wrote: Chris, I have to say I am confused about your reasoning. In this long list you don't give a single reason why you think that ODbL is worse than CC by SA. All your objections are about the process of change. One of your main objections is that there was too much communication and discussion about the reasons for the change, which seems a very strange concern to me. You say there was not enough due diligence but the process has been going on well over a year with a massive amount of review and discussion. You talk about changing the fundamental nature of the organization but I have no idea what you mean by this. ODbL embodies exactly the same principles as CC by SA was intended to, but is much more enforceable. As I said previously, the nature of the organization is all about creating a great free and open map of the world, that certainly has not changed either. So again, I'm sorry that you feel this way but I have to say I really don't understand your reasoning. Cheers, Peter. Sent from my iPad On May 11, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Chris Hunter chunter...@gmail.com wrote: I'm basing my decision on the ODbL roadmap (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan), Why you should vote Yes (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No) and Why you should vote No (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No) pages in the WIKI. Here are my objections: • The OSMF did not do enough due-diligance before voting to adopt the ODBL. Discussion was done on an extremely noisy list (talk@) and AFAIK none of the board ever cross-posted progress reports to the sub-lists. This is a classic case of security-by-obscurity. - See Chapter 1 of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. • The change is being done on the say-so of only 132 out of 254 paid members. I'm not an expert on Robert's Rules, but don't you need to have to have a super-majority to change the fundamental nature of an organization? • The roadmap as it stood yesterday made it sound like the ODbL is already passed, and that the OSMF was just dragging its heals about when it plans on implementing it or notifying anyone. If this is not correct, I apologize. • Last weekend I did some fairly minor WIKI updates and noticed several slippymaps were rendering with a reference to something called the Openstreetmap License. Between the updated slippymaps and Firefishy's original edit, it sounded like the OSMF had finally gotten around to making the contributor license mandatory. 4.a My current job is time consuming and has a draconian Internet access policy. I may well have become a victim of FUD, but I can only read my email on my phone, and I simply don't have time to read the talk@ group's 5+ daily digests. See points 1 and 3. • The OSMF's actions have made me feel disenfranchised on several occasions. My biggest sources of frustration are the original Local Chapter agreement, and the ODBL adoption vote that was taken on 27-Dec-2009 (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.html). • To answer Serge's PMs, yes, this is a low blow, but my experiences on points 3 and 4 made me feel like there was no other choice. If I can stretch your metaphor a bit, it was looking like the jack-boots were on the doorstep, so a kick to the groin seemed like the best defense. What did you find objectionable? Maybe I'll be turned off by it too. I'm not speaking for Chris, but I'm of the opinion that the OSM Foundation did not perform due diligence in getting the approval (or at least the opinion) of the overall contributors to the database. I think I understand that the OSMF's opinion is that the license change is needed in order to have a legal framework to operate internationally, but I don't think it's appropriate to only ask the ~300 members of OSMF for approval. Please take this with a grain of salt though, as I think the current change only applies to new user accounts. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On May 11, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled, and feel that I can no longer participate in the OSM project. I'm in the process of deleting all of my contributions. I'd like to encourage each of you to do the same, but in the end it depends on your goals for the project. You're nuts. I am being careful to only delete objects that have not been touched since I created them - roads, portions of the TN River, etc... Please respect my wishes and do not undelete these objects. You've released that data CCBYSA, anyone can do what they want with it, under that. Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
the LWG has been going through peoples legitimate and illegitimate concerns for two years I think it's been now. We've had lawyers checking everything at every step of the way. I personally just want to say thank you to the license working group for taking on the thankless job of wrangling the legal issues and trying to plug the holes in the intellectual property issues. I am so sick of the intellectual property parasites these days like the patent aggregator trolls, the DMCA-weilding EULA writers, the virtually-perpetual-copyright-extension legislators, the corporate execs who fund these legislators and then monopolize business through it, the @#$%$ratzle#$%!fratzin'!...@*?!!Oops, sorry, I got carried away there. (At least Darl McBride finally got canned; it only took how many years and how many millions$$$? Ugh.) Anyways, thank you to the OSM LWG and the Creative Commons and ODbL people who use their powers for good instead of evil :-) - Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On 5/12/10 10:19 AM, SteveC wrote: It's pretty bonkers. Anyone is welcome to join the LWG call each week or read the minutes, and be as involved as you like. License changes will always throw up people who don't like it, and the LWG has been going through peoples legitimate and illegitimate concerns for two years I think it's been now. We've had lawyers checking everything at every step of the way. So it's very frustrating for those involved after so much effort to finally be able to make one step towards completion, and have people throw stones like this. Because, after all if you do your homework CCBYSA is a total mess for OSM and all the LWG is trying to do is fix that mess. yes. i haven't really been following the licensing closely, but after the email from Chris, i went through the wiki page outlining the issues. from where i sit (as of this past monday, working at a major corporation that _may_ use OSM in a logistics application), this change is pretty much necessary for OSM to achieve its goals. my new employer runs all this stuff through their lawyers; they would probably not approve the CCBYSA and probably would approve the new license, as it rather exactly addresses the things that they worry about. so i will continue to contribute to OSM and i will consent to the new license when the time comes. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, SteveC wrote: I am being careful to only delete objects that have not been touched since I created them - roads, portions of the TN River, etc... Please respect my wishes and do not undelete these objects. You've released that data CCBYSA, anyone can do what they want with it, under that. Steve is right; deleting your data from OSM is not different from deleting anyone else's data. This is a community after all. So deleting your data is vandalism just as it would be if someone else deleted your data, and such vandalism will usually rightfully lead to the community reverting it. What if a new contributor reverts it? Would the revert then be considered ODBL? Terribly thought out process. Terrible idea in the first place. Anthony ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
Hi, Anthony wrote: What if a new contributor reverts it? Would the revert then be considered ODBL? A revert is an edit like any other. What does that mean? It means that the legal situation in the following two cases is exactly the same: 1) A creates road; B edits road; C edits road. 2) A creates road; B deletes road; C undeletes road. Maybe it was a bad idea to start out with CC-BY-SA, but ODBL is worse, and the process of switching is worst of all. I don't think that CC-BY-SA is worse but you seem to have a peculiar interpretation of things stateside so YMMV. Any license change in an open project is always a painful process for the community. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On May 12, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Anthony wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, SteveC wrote: I am being careful to only delete objects that have not been touched since I created them - roads, portions of the TN River, etc... Please respect my wishes and do not undelete these objects. You've released that data CCBYSA, anyone can do what they want with it, under that. Steve is right; deleting your data from OSM is not different from deleting anyone else's data. This is a community after all. So deleting your data is vandalism just as it would be if someone else deleted your data, and such vandalism will usually rightfully lead to the community reverting it. What if a new contributor reverts it? Would the revert then be considered ODBL? No, it would be both CCBYSA and ODbL. But for all practical purposes, may as well just think of it as CCBYSA until the full changeover happens. Terribly thought out process. Terrible idea in the first place. Thanks for the insight. Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On 13 May 2010 02:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Anthony wrote: What if a new contributor reverts it? Would the revert then be considered ODBL? A revert is an edit like any other. What does that mean? It means that the legal situation in the following two cases is exactly the same: 1) A creates road; B edits road; C edits road. 2) A creates road; B deletes road; C undeletes road. Well, I can kind of see a problem here (and am not in the states now :-) ). In both situations the final version is a derived work of version A or B, or even a copy. User C obtained version B under CC-By-SA, but claims to hold copyright of it and grant all the rights to OSMF when she uploads her change. Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 01:39 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Terribly thought out process. Terrible idea in the first place. IMHO the terrible idea was to start out with CC-BY-SA in the first place; had we simply been PD all along, nobody would have made a fuss and we could have saved zillions of man-hours in license working group time and heated mailing list discussions. Some very smart lawyers at very big companies in the US claim that PD doesn't really exist, outside what would otherwise be government-held copyright. PD might make it worse. Let's just blame the lawyers. :) -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: this change is pretty much necessary for OSM to achieve its goals. my new employer runs all this stuff through their lawyers; they would probably not approve the CCBYSA and probably would approve the new license, as it rather exactly addresses the things that they worry about. My current $DayJob is unlikely to use OSM data* but we likewise have lawyers review FLOSS licenses same as for commercial licenses, and in my role I am one of the software people liaising with Legal on these issues. What we can do with 'copyleft' licenses** is much more restricted than things with BY-ish *** or simply CC-ish terms (Apache, MIT licenses). From that stand-point I see the new license as a great step forward. * (a $DayJob++ which did use OSM data is one of the few upgrades I can imagine) ** (Copyleft is SA for software, GPL is the best known) *** (and those only if it doesn't require brag screens: BSD2 Ok, BSD1 no) As to Process: communications in a volunteer movement is often, if not alway, deeply flawed. This is to be expected: If we were communicators not mappers, we'd be in Toastmasters Inc, not in OSM. The few that are good at both are precious, but may still wish to spend some of their time mapping! At least the OSMF is still by and for the volunteers who choose to upgrade to OSMF membership, and not run by and for the paid office staff, as so many foundations wind up. The LWG process appears to have blind-sided some heads-down mappers, the LWG heard its own message and assumed others did, and has not chosen to continuously over-communicate outside their list wiki. That seems to me a well-intentioned lapse, and might have been sensible, as continuous argument on all lists might have annoyed More folks than the seeming blindsiding. Why didn't we get much warning here? Lately, talk-us has been distracted by the urgent necessity of a Chapter, which I will grudgingly admit has been transparently communicated quite well here, mostly avoiding misunderstanding (and Kate nipped one or two in the bud with charming humility). This may have lead us to expect loud announcements here on any other changes, but our self selected talk-us leaders/representatives are busy getting standing to represent us in license negotiations with Governments, not with OSMF. If both needed doing, sooner is better for each. Oh well, murphy strikes again. I can understand a Process objection, as, although as volunteer process goes, I'm favorably impressed, that is a matter for personal opinion and emotion: headsdown mappers who are overtaken by events may feel real pain this week or soon, and I would not deny that very real human reaction. I can understand and respect that someone for whom CCBYSA is a weak compromise for 'Information wants to be free' who wants to see 19th Century Intellectual Property concepts whither in the 21st Century prefer maximally viral copyleft licences in the meantime. In that line, I note the PD-User tag proposal, and will give that due consideration. While agreeing much IP law reform is needed (and that DMCA ACTA aren't it), I do wish creatives still be *able* to retain some rights to their work, whether opt-in or opt-out. I can understand that someone who sees the slippy map as 'the OSM' might feel the new license is too weak, but the old saw of Tag for the database not the renderer applies: OSM is the planet.osm file, not the Mapnik slippy. If someone copyrights an embellished jpg output by mapnik with their style guide, it harms me not, as I can still output any Mapnik jpg I like, however similar or different, so long as I don't sign THEIR name to it. For the purposes of building a open central single mapping database, the new license seems well balanced to my jaundiced eye, and fits my uses better, and will allow the BBC to show our maps. -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote:
Some very smart lawyers at very big companies in the US
and in law schools also based on what i read on web
claim that PD doesn't really exist,
as Congress has mangled our laws, that seems to be the state here now:
Copyright is innate in all creative works, with no opt in nor opt out,
only licensing. Some Rights signed away in life revert to heirs upon
death, and under the Mickey Mouse Act, survive 75 years. Exactly how
extending the copyrights of the dead retroactively served the single
specific end specified in the Constitution of encouraging practice of
useful arts escapes me ... Walt Disney has drawn no mice by his own
hands since the extension ...
outside what would otherwise be government-held copyright.
Yes, According to the IP gurus I've read, the closest to true PD
recognized in current US law is US Govt Copyright.
PD might make it worse.
CCPD, CC0, MIT, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL are all attempts to
codify the intent of PD or as close as one can get in current US Law.
CCPD/CC0 and the {{PD-user}} tag have the advantage that if the
digital revolution ever results in an opt-in copyright system or legal
establishment of opt-out / real PD in US law, the dedication to PD may
be recognized retroactively.
Let's just blame the lawyers. :)
It should be a conflict of interest for a lawyer to sit in a legislature.
--
Bill
IANAL but i actually read the stuff
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:20 -0400, Chris Hunter wrote: I have major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled, and feel that I can no longer participate in the OSM project. I honestly haven't paid much attention to it. I figured it was pretty messy, but legally necessary for OSM to continue to be adopted into certain environments. What did you find objectionable? Maybe I'll be turned off by it too. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
Chris, my goal in participating in OpenStreetMap was and still is to help build a free and open map of the world. The license change does nothing to alter that goal. I'm sorry you feel the way that you do. I encourage everyone to continue to contribute to this great project. Cheers, Peter. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Chris Hunter chunter...@gmail.com wrote: Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled, and feel that I can no longer participate in the OSM project. I'm in the process of deleting all of my contributions. I'd like to encourage each of you to do the same, but in the end it depends on your goals for the project. I am being careful to only delete objects that have not been touched since I created them - roads, portions of the TN River, etc... Please respect my wishes and do not undelete these objects. Sincerely, Chris Hunter DiverCTH ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
chris wrote: Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled, and feel that I can no longer participate in the OSM project. can someone lend a list-skimmer a clue? i see nothing but cc-by-sa on the map and on the wiki. paul =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 48.9 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Paul Fox p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us wrote: chris wrote: Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled, and feel that I can no longer participate in the OSM project. can someone lend a list-skimmer a clue? i see nothing but cc-by-sa on the map and on the wiki. The change noted here is that people creating new accounts need to agree to dual license their contributions under ODBL and CC-BY-SA: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan -Katie paul =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 48.9 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Katie Filbert @filbertkm ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
katie wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Paul Fox p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us wrote: can someone lend a list-skimmer a clue? i see nothing but cc-by-sa on the map and on the wiki. The change noted here is that people creating new accounts need to agree to dual license their contributions under ODBL and CC-BY-SA: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan thanks. i see references on the wiki to email to past contributors asking if they're okay with a license change. has this happened yet? (i.e., did i miss that too, somehow?) paul =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 47.8 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Chris Hunter chunter...@gmail.com wrote: Well, between the new links on the map and today's WIKI edit, it looks like the Brits have decided to shove the ODbL down our throats after all. I have major philosophical issues with the way the license change is being handled, and feel that I can no longer participate in the OSM project. That's too bad. I disagree with your shoving characterization, and with your specific aim at our pre-1776 Colonial Overlords. If I remember correctly, the LWG conference call today had callers from USA, Canada, Sweden, England, and Germany. This is not just about the Brits. That's a minor issue and I'll not quibble about it. I'm sorry if you are frustrated that you have not been included in the discussion, or that you feel your concerns have not been heard. I'm in the process of deleting all of my contributions. I'd like to encourage each of you to do the same, but in the end it depends on your goals for the project. I am being careful to only delete objects that have not been touched since I created them - roads, portions of the TN River, etc... Please respect my wishes and do not undelete these objects. I hope that you will reconsider this. Everything I've seen from the LWG has suggested that those who don't accept the ODbL will not have their data hijacked against their wishes. You could leave your contributions and they will remain available in the future ccbysa planets. They won't be carried forward against your wishes. Everything about this project, from day one, argues against that sort of bad behavior. I'm someone who has dabbled in the license change, for the last three or four years since I first heard of it. I pitch in a bit on the discussions on legal, or wiki, once in a while. Even with my limited exposure to the license change process I find it exhausting and a distraction from the things I enjoy about OSM. It's exhausting to revise another schedule. It's exhausting to publish another set of LWG conference call minutes. It's exhausting to have to run one more revision of an agreement past the lawyers. Again. I don't know how the LWG-regulars have been able to maintain their focus and commitment through the weekly conference calls. They've put hundreds of hours each into this. Because they believe that it is in the best interests of OSM. I haven't had the fortitude to spend as much time on the LWG as the others, but I do poke my head in once in a while. Initially, because I thought it was important, and I wanted to make sure the right folks were on the job. In my judgment, the right folks are absolutely on the job. Perhaps you'll reconsider. The license will not change today. The changes today only apply to new users, who will be presented, from the very beginning of their time with OSM, with the information that the license may change to ODbL, and with their assent to dual-license their data, right from the start. Informing new members is good, right? Would you consider participating with the LWG? Or at least listening in on the conference calls long enough to convince yourself that these aren't some sort of GeoData Pirates here to steal your contributions? These people, the LWG and the OSMF members, are your colleagues in creating a great Open GeoData project. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
