Nathan Edgars II wrote > > On 1/27/2012 12:44 PM, Michael Collinson wrote: >> >> As the license change process evolved, concern was expressed that an >> unacceptable amount of data might be lost from the current version of >> the OSM database and consensus was reached that phase 5 [1] - the actual >> license cut-over - should only happen when a "critical mass" was >> achieved. >> >> The question I ask you is, do you agree that we have reached critical >> mass? > > This cannot be answered until we know exactly what criteria will be used > for determining taintedness. I agree with that determining the algorithm is necessary to assess if critical mass is reached, as some choices to include or reject certain types of data can have a significant effect on the amount of data needing to be deleted.
However, I would go one step further and say it is necessary to have a formal review and acceptance of the exact algorithm by a lawyer to ensure it complies with copyright law and intellectual property rights. Otherwise we might end up with a tainted database open to litigation. Ideally OSMF would publish the written assessment of the lawyer so that everyone can make up their own mind if they think the algorithm results in a safe to use database. As there is no absolute right or wrong, I presume any statement will be rather vague and cautious. Therefore if it only gets paraphrased by a third party, some of that subtleness might get lost or miss interpreted. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Critical-Mass-for-license-change-over-tp5436116p5437410.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk