User talk:DiverCTH

Reply to Resignation Timeline

1: On or around May 8, Slippymaps on this WIKI began showing references to an "OpenStreetMap License" instead of the familiar CC-BY-SA license. These references were still in existence as of 00:23 EDT on May 12, 2010.

I am not sure what you are referring to here. Could you clarify? The Slippy Map MediaWiki Extension used on pages like Cape Town has not changed in a long time AFAIK.

The reference (and link) are from the Slippymap and Place templates.

Sorry, I still cannot find what you are refering too. The SlippMap still says CC-BY-SA and AFAIK has never changed. The closest thing I am aware of is the OSM slippymap html export clarifying the license in these two edits. Here and here -- Firefishy 05:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

2: NOTE: The WIKI has since been updated to say that this only covers new user accounts, and that users can choose between ODbL and full public-domain.

My English is terrible. I had moved old items to the passed dated item. I sorry should have been clearer.

3: During the approx 4 hours the incorrect information was there, I concluded that the OSMF has no intention of changing its autocratic behavior, and cannot be trusted to administer the data according to OSM's stated goals.

The OSMF nor any company is directing the Licensing Working Group. We are made up of members of the community. I am also part of the OSM Sysadmin team. My day job is completely unrelated to OSM. I am purely a volunteer and receive no financial reward from OSM/OSMF in any way.

We spend a lot of time making sure we record minutes of all the Licensing Working Group meeting minutes, made available here (Jan 2009 - Current). We are attempting to communicate as best we can, but we are all volunteers with limited time.

I do not want to see anyone resign from OSM. OSM is a project I enjoy and I want to see it grow. Happy to help assist in reverting if you do change your mind.

-- Firefishy 19:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FAQ Revert

I've reverted these untrue changes to the FAQ page.

You are undeniably angry, but comeon lets play fair. Yes the OSMF is registered in the England, but so are the servers? What is your point?

-- Firefishy 05:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Contributor Terms Summary

Not sure if you have seen the recent contributor terms summary document? -- Firefishy 05:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I read both the summary and the terms back in March and found the summary to be (deliberately?) misleading when compared to the actual terms. IIRC I checked that the actual terms hadn't changed when I made my original post back in May. --DiverCTH 02:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing contributions

Hi DiverCTH, I also won't supply my contributions to ODbL, but I am still adding some new ways, though the enthusiasm for the project is gone. Also I don't trust anybody from OSMF (license mafia), but I am *pretty sure* the project would suffer substantially if they abuse non-ODbL data (includng mine...) in their new "fork" project. So I don't see a point for me to remove anything I've added. --amai 09:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

amai, I find you calling me 'license mafia' offensive. But anyway. -- Firefishy 10:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? - I find the OSMF's ongoing arbitrary actions to force the ODbL's passage come hell-or-high-water to be extremely offensive.

Remember: the OSMF is only a small subset of the contributor base. Also, the OSMF deliberately closed the voting to existing OSMF members when the original ODbL vote was cast and only informed the general contributorship of the vote after the rolls were closed.

I think I speak for both Amai and myself in saying that both these actions are blatantly undemocratic and in complete opposition with the basic concepts of open-source, creative-commons and public domain. --DiverCTH 02:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Amai, I can understand the reluctance to trust OSMF, but even if there indeed is sinister plot (of which I for one am still not convinced: [Hanlon's Razor] could explain the mistake of giving too much power to any body, like OSMF is given in new Contributor Terms), I'd guess the majority of the OSMF members would be mislead rather then involved actively in such plot. So I too do not see a reason for such labeling of all OSMF members (including those who disagree with current direction, like me).

As for the original comment, I do agree with Amai: DiverCTH, you should not be deleting your CC-BY-SA data (if your reasons are disagreements with ODbL and direction OSMF is taking): if the move to ODbL does happen (which is still not set in stone, I think), your data cannot be legally used there anyway (and OSMF will remove it themselves from ODbL OSM), but you will actively hurt any (possible) fork of CC-BY-SA licensed OSM (of which you seems to be approving). So, your active deleting of data won't hurt OSMF and ODbL at all, but will hurt the people who prefer user-licensed CC-BY-SA OSM like yourself. --mnalis 12:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mnalis I agree that it does hurt any forked project (which I would love to see), but given the current state of the technological infrastructure, I don't think it's technically possible for the OSMF (or anyone else) to be able to accurately seperate out the data without rebuilding the database from scratch, re-evaluating every changeset and then reimporting only the ODbL-friendly ones.--DiverCTH 19:30, 20 August 2010 (BST)