Ulf Lamping wrote: ...
> > So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the > mappers head - to keep the picture. No, it is not actually a gun to your head, as a gun is rather lethal. However the data of people who have not initially agreed to is not deleted for ever but still available in the old planet. It just no longer gets exported with the ODbL licensed data. So if at any point in the future you decided you do agree to the ODbL you can easily move your data back in. And I am sure every effort will be made to make this as simple as possible. So even if you initially say no and make your voice heard, nothing will be lost and the decision can be changed afterwards, so no real loss to you to saying no, other than perhaps causing a headache to all those who have spent a lot of time making it a good license. But what would be the alternative? Given that the licenses are incompatible to each other, even though as close as possible in spirit, I don't see much alternative to asking everyone "Do you agree / Do you not agree, at which point if _the overwhelming majority agree_ you get the chance to reconsider and if not unfortunately there is no other option than to move the data out of the ODbL licensed database. How is that in anyway different to a vote? > > Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the most - > the mappers? Well, I think the OSMF and LWG have tried incredibly hard to ask the people involved and all the mappers. They have had a panel discussion with the lawyer authoring ODbL at State of the Map, they have regularly posted to legal-talk, osmf-talk to talk and talk-de (presumably also to other lists although I don't know), all through out the year(s) of work on the license change. At every point people could give feedback and many people outside of OSMF and the LWG did give valuable feedback that has been taken into account. However at some point (after years) one just needs to proceed, otherwise one will still be discussing every last dispute while the current license potentially breaks down in court when it gets challenged. And should you have any actual concrete concerns about the license that haven't been addressed in all the discussions, supporting documentation or other information that has been produced to explain as carefully as possible why this change is needed and why it is the best current option for OpenStreetMap, then I am sure one of the more legally capable people than my self here on the list we help explain the reasoning behind the change. Kai > > Regards, ULFL > > > </div> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
