No at the time the data was added there wasn't a problem. The problem arose when the new CT retroactively changed the previously inserted data.
Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 18:30, Gordon Dewis <gor...@pinetree.org> wrote: > "What should John do?" > > John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added under the > terms he agreed to and retroactively changing his mind and deleting > everything is not an acceptable option. Your unilateral actions have > impacted more than just "your" data. > > That is what John should do. > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none acceptance. >> This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this was not >> possible. >> >> My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this >> request has been ignored more than once. >> >> I don't feel at all comfortable with the new CT for all the work I've >> done. I've used CANVEC as an example, its not so much the .odbl as the open >> endedness of the CT. I can work with the new CT by restricting my sources >> to ones that I have complete license control over which basically means >> carrying the GPS than working from the traces but no imports. >> >> I agree selecting and deleting manually is not nice but once its done the >> the community can repair the damage fairly quickly and it does remove the >> problem data. >> >> as Richard says "Question open to the room. What now? What should John >> do? What should we do?" >> >> I'm open to suggestions either of the first two would be more than >> acceptable. >> >> Thanks >> >> Cheerio John >> >> >> >> On 6 June 2011 18:10, Gordon Dewis <gor...@pinetree.org> wrote: >> >>> All... >>> >>> I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that >>> I am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back >>> cleaning up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I >>> would respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question. >>> >>> Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think >>> you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every >>> street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been >>> removed, too. >>> >>> --Gordon (Keeper of Maps) >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. >>>> >>>> If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and >>>> why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it >>>> was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up >>>> your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big >>>> improvement for OSM. Is that about right? >>>> >>>> > On looking more deeply into >>>> > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license >>>> > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently >>>> it is >>>> > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever >>>> changing >>>> > document. >>>> >>>> You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional >>>> license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by >>>> approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the >>>> time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email >>>> within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and >>>> approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. >>>> >>>> > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from >>>> a GPS >>>> > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new >>>> CT >>>> > but very little else. >>>> > >>>> > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. >>>> > >>>> > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits >>>> removed but >>>> > all have been ignored. >>>> > >>>> > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. >>>> >>>> Your premise is flawed. It's not "your" data once you contribute to a >>>> collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us. >>>> It's not your well if you help the village dig it. You can't decide >>>> you would rather use it as a latrine. That's a decision the village >>>> has to take together. >>>> >>>> The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are >>>> offering each contributor the option to have their contributions >>>> removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than >>>> would be expected. It is an exceptionally cautious approach by the >>>> OpenStreetMap Foundation and generous to a fault to those with qualms >>>> about the license. >>>> >>>> > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be >>>> replaced >>>> > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that >>>> OSM in >>>> > its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not >>>> > acceptable to CANVEC. >>>> >>>> Canvec and GeoBase data are already approved for CT/ODbL. I think >>>> those were announced here many months ago. >>>> >>>> So, you are happy with CT/ODbL with the data you mentioned above. So >>>> you don't have an objection to CT/ODbL. Canvec and GeoBase data are >>>> already compatible with CT/ODbL, so there is no need for you (or >>>> anybody else) to remove that data based on CT/ODbL. Is that correct? >>>> >>>> > I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been >>>> > deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed >>>> to be >>>> > an appropriate time to start deleting. >>>> >>>> You mean here? In ¶4 ? >>>> >>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006044.html >>>> >>>> Frederik's email counsels against exactly what you think that you've >>>> done. He says that prematurely deleting data of license decliners >>>> would be inappropriate and cause unneeded community tension. But you >>>> went ahead and deleted stuff. And Frederik's email has nothing to do >>>> with this situation. You've accepted CT/ODbL. >>>> >>>> > Sorry for any inconvenience. >>>> >>>> Question open to the room. What now? What should John do? What should >>>> we do? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-ca mailing list >>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-ca mailing list >>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
