On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Davie <tom.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2011, at 11:09, David Groom wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Davie" <tom.da...@gmail.com> > > Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the new CT's without > incident. OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing to the new CT's, > but to simply switch their accounts to the new CT's on the assumption they > would agree, and it doesn't affect ant data currently in the OSM database, > is not right. > > No one is proposing switching them to the new CTs – > > In an earlier post it was written "which is ignoring the 70% or so of all > of those people who never > edited and can be switched over without incident." I took this to mean > that someone was suggesting they could be switched to the new CT's. > > > My appologies, maybe they, or I have misunderstood. I would agree entirely > that it would be invalid to decide that these people have agreed to the new > license without letting them ever tick a box. It would however not be > invalid simply to block their account and force them to agree, and it would > be of no detriment to the project. > I try not to contribute to this bike-shedding, but I think the original quote was of Steve Coast -- and while I don't pretend to speak for him, I took his meaning to be that people will not be marked as accepting the CT and the ODbL, but rather since they have no actual contributions, we can "switch them over" to future phases without regard to data loss of any kind. I think we're now in the phase of "you have to accept or reject CT's", where this was a voluntary process before. So, even if all of this "70%" rejected the move, there would be a ZERO data loss. I don't believe he meant to imply that they would be automatiically marked as accepting; but rather that their acceptance or rejection wouldn't have a data impact.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
