Well. Then I come along, add an amenity=cafe, under a CCBYSA2.0-license. But at the wrong spot. And you, having chosen an OdBL-license, decides to move it to the correct position. Under what license is that node?
This isn't going to be easy, hardly possible? :) - Vegard On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 07:58:22AM +0200, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: > A fork as stipulated is not necessarily about a group of people leaving OSM , > but about > > we (OSM) deciding to continue in two or more future directions > > covered by different licenses, and maybe finally decide which license fits > best. > > > > This would require the OSM database to include a extra field for each and > every item indicating the license > > the data was provided by its contributor. The license choice can be made in > the users profile. > > > > For most of OSM there is no difference. > > The license is only relevant once data is extracted to external parties. > > > > External parties will therefore always know under what license any node and > any way of the > > database had been granted to them. > > > > The map server and most applications at would remain as they are. > > > > We may however create a second and or more maps showing only the data from > specific licenses > > and enabling OSM-ers to evaluate the consequences of their choices. > > > > I think this is the only way to solve this everlasting and destructive > license discussion. > > > > It requires however, some flexibility of mind, and the trust that OSM will not > > abuse the choice made by its contributors. As the database and the license > field will > > be visible to all of us, I trust that will be not a major problem. > > > > > > Gert Gremmen > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) > > P Before printing, think about the environment. > > > > > > Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] > Namens 80n > Verzonden: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:17 PM > Aan: m...@koppenhoefer.com > CC: talk@openstreetmap.org > Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA > 2.0continuation > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 2010/8/23 Michael Kugelmann <michaelk_...@gmx.de>: > > > BTW: @Felix Hartmann > > using words like > >> > >> so fuck off. > > > > shows that you don't have arguments. So step back - defamation is alsways a > > sign of weakness. Learn a good conduct before you continues with the > > discussion. > > > > to be fair: he didn't write (others) should f**k off, what he meant > was "clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else to fuck off". > Thus I agree that this might not be adequate language, you shouldn't > critisize him for that, probably he wasn't aware because English is > not his primary language. > > On the argument I agree though: make your own mailing lists for your > fork. It's probably OK to announce it here (with an URL where to go, > which was actually missing in your announcement), but further > discussions should then be brought to the place of your fork, not > inside the resources of OSM. > > I also agree it would be absurd to have OSM handle over the account > data of its contributors (and is against almost any privacy law at > least in Europe). There is also no logics in that: people who want to > can simply create a new account with their old credentials on the fork > site (I'm not planning to join the fork, but if I was I surely > wouldn't use the same pw I used for OSM). > > There is absolutely no need for OSM to relinquish any private account data. > No fork will ever need that data and I doubt that any fork would even bother > asking OSM for it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
