David Murn wrote: > the problem is that the powers-that-be dont seem to want to > address the problematic terms and simply tell people the > decisions have already been made, and to cease discussion. > Hardly the way to run an open community project.
I realise the phrase "assume good faith" is becoming increasingly over-used in these discussions, but if the above were true, then the Contributor Terms would still be in 1.0. Instead there's now a 1.2 draft, plus a whole bunch of smaller incremental revisions along the way, as suggested by mappers. (One example: I suggested a change last week to cement compatibility with attribution-required sources, such as Ordnance Survey OpenData and those offered under CC-BY; LWG listened, agreed to incorporate the change, and it's now in the 1.2 draft.) One other phrase which sadly doesn't get as much traction as it used to is "patches welcome". There are no "powers that be" in OSM; there is no "them" and "us". It's a collaborative project. It's all "us". If you want something changed, help to change it. Because when you engage with the guys who are doing stuff, make suggestions, talk to them in a friendly manner, the result is better for everyone. That applies as much to licence discussions as it does to OSM software or website development. But when you throw assumptions and resentment around and assume the worst, yes, the worst usually happens. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/license-change-map-tp5759109p5763389.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
