On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Graham Jones <grahamjones...@googlemail.com > wrote:
> It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we > voted the right way. > > I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level > the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see > what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it > did not seem like an issue. I can't even remember if I took much notice of > the contributor terms.... > IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took place. > This probably brings us back to where this long email debate started - just > how much data do we expect to lose, and what would we consider acceptable? > My personal tolerance of loss of data is extremely small (maybe <1%). > Once you start to talk about losing of the order 10% or more of a country, I > have a lot of sympathy with the contributors in that area talking about > forking the project. > The only way I can imagine the data loss being less than 10% is if the contributions of inactive users are forcibly relicensed without their consent (*). Hasn't at least 10% of the map been touched by users who are no longer contributing? Should I run the numbers on that one, or can someone else run them for me?
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk