I'd prefer that they'd get it over with. I already agreed to it, since an open database license for a database seems more fitting. It's a bit problematic that the process is drawn out this long. It creates too much uncertainty.
Jo 2010/12/16 Ben Laenen <benlae...@gmail.com> > eMerzh wrote: > > as you probably know (or not), Openstreetmap is looking to change the > > licence from cc-by-sa to the new odbl licence > > > > [...] > > > > since there was not much traffic about this in the talk-be list, i've > check > > the acceptance rate of Belgium... > > I did announce it, but you just won't reach most mappers through the > mailing > list. > > > here on a map > > > http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/?zoom=9&lat=50.68506&lon=4.5875&la > > yers=B0 or here http://odbl.info.nu/belgium.html per user... > > > > Wow 26% of all nodes .... it's small... too small ( where France has > ~60%) > > It's of course still in the voluntary approval phase, and I for one am > still > waiting for more information on whether to approve the new contributor > terms > or not: information about the next steps in this process, how it will be > decided whether we go on with the license change, etc. I need confirmation > that you won't delete a quarter of all the Belgian data for example, which > could include a lot of my work if someone in the objects' histories didn't > agree. > > I have no problems with the new license, but I do have problems with the > lack > of information. > > Greetings > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
