Thank you, John. I couldn't have expressed it better.
Throughout this whole sorry story, I have only ever received ONE
communication form OSM. It was a begging letter asking me to reconsider.
If not for the discussion of the forum, I would not have even known
about the licence change. AI think
Hi Richard,
Like or loathe the licence change, and the manner it has been pursued,
sure. But I really don't think anyone in OSM has tried to keep the
knowledge of the licence change quiet. I think a fair few people have been
trying to get in touch with as many people as possible.
I've personall
I did decline the new terms. And I was contacted, as I said, just once,
by someone trying to persuade me to change my mind. My point was that
OSM never contacted me to say that a licence change was being
considered. That is hardly the right way to go about making a major
change to the system.
Hi Richard,
There are a couple of hundred thousand registered members of OSM, and much
effort has gone into contacting those who are genuinely out of touch.
There are around 25 Australian contributors who have declined, and all of
them are fairly significant contributors. They went to the same si
Richard
while IMHO communications in OSM and out of OSM leave much to desire, in
the case of the licence change there has been a substantial amount of
communication to the mappers. The only reason I can see for you -not-
getting a mail from the OSMF early on, is that you must have practically
imm
No! Wrong!
I've never actually declined at all. I have just never accepted the new
CT's. I didn't decline because I wasn't asked. From my point of view,
there wasn't _*any*_ communication directly with the mappers. I knew
about the changes *only *because I am on the Talk-Au list. OSM never
c
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Richard Colless wrote:
> No! Wrong!
>
> I've never actually declined at all. I have just never accepted the new
> CT's. I didn't decline because I wasn't asked. From my point of view, there
> wasn't any communication directly with the mappers.
[ ... ]
The intent
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Richard Colless wrote:
> I followed the discussion with much interest, and only decided not to accept
> the new CT's when I observed the rudeness with which the objections were
> handled. The recent spate of correspondence has done nothing to make me
> reconsider.
On 1/04/2012 10:08 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Richard Colless wrote:
I followed the discussion with much interest, and only decided not to accept
the new CT's when I observed the rudeness with which the objections were
handled. The recent spate of correspondence h
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Richard Colless wrote:
> I'm not taking out any resentment on anybody. I'm simply choosing not to
> participate. So don't say that I'm hurting anybody.. I'm quite happy for any
> of my data to remain. If someone else chooses to delete it, blame them for
> any hur
On 1/04/2012 2:16 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Richard Colless wrote:
I'm not taking out any resentment on anybody. I'm simply choosing not to
participate. So don't say that I'm hurting anybody.. I'm quite happy for any
of my data to remain. If someone else choo
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Richard Colless wrote:
> As to your suggestions:
> My e-mail address has remained the same for the last 15 years or so
> I run several junk filters, and check their contents for incorrect
> diversions before I delete them
>
> Any other guesses?
Your screen
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> But I think declining the CTs is taking out your resentment on the wrong
> people.
> By not allowing your contributions to be part of OSM, you mostly hurt
> the people for whom we're all doing this: the wider open content
> community, and all
13 matches
Mail list logo
