On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:39:13 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: >Hi,
>Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz <ed...@billiau.net> wrote: >>> For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been >>> re- >>> edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray >> >> If someone presents me with a boolean "Do you allow relicensing under >> the ODbL" I'll have to say no because some of my edits are derived >> from CC-BY-SA data I don't have permission to license (and I probably >> can't even recall what all of it is). >First, I would appreciate if people could stop talking about "nuking" data. Fair enough, I hadn't had much sleep that morning. >The non-relicensed data will sit in some kind of separate, possibly >read-only server, from where it can be accessed, just like now, under >the terms of CC-BY-SA. This server may or may not be made available by >OSMF but it will certainly exist, and OSMF has already said that a full >history dump will be provided. Fred, not a criticism of you in particular, as I appreciate your time in explaining the situation. I very tempted though to make this mean that instead of my data being "nuked", it will be "orphaned" instead. This is still Hobson's choice for me. I'm just kicking myself that I naively assumed that the custodians of my data contributions had my interests at heart. Now I realise the *custodians* are a much bigger threat to the longevity of my contributions than any "10^100" megacorp. All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no real-world "exploits". Brendan
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
