On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 16 April 2011 01:29, Dermot McNally<derm...@gmail.com> wrote:
This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining
the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and
now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in
good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense
some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But
mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even
though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider
whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part
of.
At this point it's only known that there's an unspecified non-zero
part of the community which wants OSM to switch license. Not everyone
needs to be true to that part of the community just like not everyone
needs to be true to the part that wants OSM data in Public Domain or
the part that drinks coffee with milk etc.
Let us try and separate the issue of license change from the issue of
the CT for a moment. Let us assume that there was no immediate license
change planned; that OSMF intended to continue using CC-BY-SA for now;
and that they only sought CT agreement from mappers, in order to make a
potential future license change easier.
The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what
Dermot writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and
open license, then that is the new license and everyone's data is
changed to that new license.
I think that *that* is the major change here, and I have outlined in the
past that I believe that you cannot be a part of a crowdsourced mapping
effort if you consider your contribution to be only "rented out" to the
project. If you want to participate in OSM, where all the time others
will build upon your work, then you cannot sensibly say "but if you
decide to change your license later I might choose to take away my
contribution". If you contribute to OSM, you pour a glass of water into
an ocean. You cannot wrap that in plastic and label it "yours". I made a
comparison with voluntary work in real-life communities; if you have
spent a lot of time and love helping to build a nice playground for the
village school but later the whole school decides to adopt some
pedadogic direction of which you don't approve and you put your kid
elsewhere, you cannot tear town the playground. It wouldn't be right
(and it would be very unlikely to make you happy).
Now if someone says "I'm willing to sign the CT on the condition that
before OSMF switches to ODbL, they execute the exact license change
procedure outlined in the CT, with asking 2/3 of active mappers etc.",
then this is something I can understand and respect.
I do however have the impression that there are some people for whom
calling for a public vote is just another means to delay and hopefully
derail the process, and secretly they never intended to continue
supporting the project after a license change anyway. These people are
dishonest, they should simply click "disagree" and leave. I have no
sympathy or patience for people who are unwilling to make the kind of
committment requested by the CT. If you want full control over "your"
data then make your own little OSM just for yourself.
I have a suggestion, one which we could implement in true crowdsourced
spirit and without any OSMF involvement. We simply draw up a document
that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms,
which says "I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the
additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below
before they change from ODbL to CC-BY-SA". We then devise some sort of
sufficiently legally binding way for people to "sign" this document.
Everyone who thinks that the CT are ok in principle but who would like a
proper vote first, signs this document instead of the "real" CT.
Then one of three things will happen:
* The number of people who sign this is close to zero. This would then
mean that those calling for a vote are unwilling to sign the CT anyway,
and whichever way the vote goes it would not change the fact that
they're leaving - in that case, why bother to hold a vote.
* The number of people who sign this is so small that their edits
practically don't make a difference and OSMF might decide to go ahead
and ignore these people, and treat them like they had said "no".
* The number of people who sign this is significant, in which case OSMF
would be very tempted to actually hold the vote before switching ot ODbL
- something they are perfectly within their right to do, even if
everyone else has signed the "standard" CT -, and everybody would be
happy. Of course all this would have to be watertight enough to not
allow someone to back out if the vote result is pro ODbL.
There's of course a drawback to this, and that is that while you sign
the "CT with conditions attached" outlined above, your account will be
counted as either "undecided" or "rejected the CT" because the "CT with
conditions" would be something implemented outside of the system. You
would be forced to continue editing in the mean time with a new account
that has agreed to the CT, or not edit at all until the matter is resolved.
I have signed the CT long ago but if I were of the opinion that a vote
must be held, this is what I would do - in the long established spirit
of doing something instead of whining that somebody else should do (or
not do) something.
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
