Talk:Licence and Legal FAQ/OSMF Vote/Why You Should Vote No: Difference between revisions

This argument is simply a lie. New contributors don't have a vote in the current license changeover. --[[OSM:User:Cartinus|Cartinus]] 11:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 

: Also you seem to misunderstand term "re-licensed" which [[OSM:User:Tordanik|Tordanik]] is talking about. You have to '''have previous contributions''' under old licence to be able to make re-licensing choice, and new users by definition don't have data licensed under CC-BY-SA. And old users (when time comes [[OSM:Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28as_soon_as_technical_process_complete.29|soon]]) will be able to make a choice not to relicense their changes under ODbL. In that case, their contributions will be removed from ODbL dataset, but anybody could still continue to use it under CC-BY-SA (just probably '''not''' on infrastructure OSMF is paying for).

: While I'm against move to ODbL and new contributor terms (you can see [[OSM:User:Mnalis#Licensing_issues|my user page]] for details), I do not agree with all [[OSM:User:DiverCTH|DiverCTH]] says here. Firstly, I do not agree that OSMF is trying to hide the change. I mean, [[OSM:http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License Find out more about OpenStreetMap's upcoming license change]] link is on top of '''EVERY''' wiki page, it can hardly be missed! Secondly, there is no voting (as mentioned above). Thirdly, there is limit to what (and how) OSMF might change licence (although it really [[OSM:User_talk:Mnalis#Clarification_on_the_new_contributor_terms|should be improved greatly]]). The FUD will not help convince users that direction OSMF is taking is wrong. Please don't do that. The only chance we have of convincing users to stop it is by being sincere and pointing out real problems. --[[OSM:User:Mnalis|mnalis]] 12:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)