Talk:Ccbysa fork

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Steps to take

Find a new appropriate Domain

We need some good ideas. And to avoid any paranoid actions better register before discussing ;-) --amai 18:38, 22 August 2010 (BST)

I have and am willing to give it away if I someone is really interested in setting up a fork. However, all I see at the moment is negativity and propaganda. If Amai had his way, the first thing on that site would not be an editor and not be a map, and not be a text about how great the project is, but how OpenStreetMap is evil, cheating, and what not. And I'm not into spreading hate speech. --Frederik Ramm 19:32, 22 August 2010 (BST)


  • We need to be much more audible and visible. Many contributors will be pissed when they see their data vanish in the ODbL fork.
  • Provide real information! E.g. comment on meaningless information like "948 users have so far accepted the new Contribution Terms. This represents roughly 40% of all edits": that doesn't mean 40% of data would survive. It means only that 40% would be the never reachable upper limit if an ODbL-fork would be dumped today.
  • Get new infrastructure real soon now, as the rulers for this infrastructure may kick this discussion anytime.
  • The big problem is IMHO not to get new infrastructure somewhere&somehow. Problem is the resulting "battle" afterwards. While we would keep the existing project alive, the ODbL-fork would do a hostile take over for name&domain :-(

--amai 12:55, 22 August 2010 (BST)

If you talk yourself up like that ("hostile takeover") then you are starting a battle. The license will change if an overwhelming number of people agree. This can hardly be "hostile". A fork can and should be done in a civilized manner. See User:Frederik Ramm/A message to those who want a fork. --Frederik Ramm 19:20, 22 August 2010 (BST)
Would the licence change really happen "only if overwhelming number of people agree"? Maybe I missed it (please point me if I did!) but when I asked the Board and LWG at OSMF for that guarantee (to give such percentage below which the license change won't happen) I never did get such an answer. The closest I ever got was more like "we won't switch if overwhelming number of people DOESN'T agree" by one member of LWG. Which is something else completely (and allows license change if, like, 30% users disagree - even if I myself for example would find such number catastrophic). As for the "hostile fork", I guess I don't see what we're talking about. What would be a difference as opposed to "friendly fork"? --mnalis 20:26, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Make plans for constructive co-existence of OSM and CC-BY-SA fork

If the aim of this is to set up a proper fork and not just to make a lot of noise, we should take into consideration that a lot of people don't care at all for the license. If given a chance, these people will happily make their future work available under both CC-BY-SA and ODbL. Rather calling for an all-out war in which you must either belong to the CC-BY-SA camp and reject ODbL or vice versa, technical means should be investigated to let people contribute to both OSM and the CC-BY-SA fork after OSM converts to ODbL.

GPX track upload are mostly easy - if it is uploaded at CC-BY-SA site, it can be uploaded to OSM site too (provided user sets up OAuth or gives his/hers OSM password). However, allowing users to edit both sites at once (even with enormous JOSM/... upgrades) is next to impossible (I'd love to hear it differently but even in software world with SCM systems [which had decades to improve on what we haven't even started yet] it is still a lot of work to merge different edits when they overlap) - especially when data between forks starts to diverge more and more. Note that this does not mean that the users will HAVE to choose one camp or another, but simply that vast majority of them WILL probably choose one camp or another in order not to have to make all edits twice. --mnalis 21:19, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Also, there will be some areas where OSM is better and some where the CC-BY-SA fork is better. Since ODbL allows the creation of "produced works" works under any license, a CC-BY-SA tile server can be built which shows data from the CC-BY-SA fork where that is better, and data from OSM where that is better. (Care has to be taken not to trigger ODbL's database share-alike but it can be done.) That tile server would then show the "best of both worlds".

I'm also not sure if this is doable technically. How would CC-BY-SA tile server "know" if it should show original OSM or it's own data? It could see what was last modified, and that would probably work for first few weeks or months (depending on the usage of CC-BY-SA server), but be useless after that. It could count the nodes and proclaim that the one with higher node count is "better" (but that heuristic will often go wrong, especially on duplicate data cleanups etc). It might settle just to do something along the lines of showing CC-BY-SA tile unless OSM site was modified after fork, but that would mean CC-BY-SA server value would diminish more and more with time. Or some combination of the ideas might be used, but it would still be imperfect. Oh, and no matter what approach was taken, tiles would mismatch (for example if one road on OSM was tilted for at 5 degree angle, and it wasn't in CC-BY-SA, or vice versa, the roads would look disconnected, broken and ugly -- not as one picture but as more or less broken puzzle (depending on the amount and nature of differences) --mnalis 21:19, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Setup a new alternative board and organisation

  1. It's not trivial to setup an infrastructure for an international project. Good ideas anyone?
  2. Also we should avoid cheating our users&contributors like the ODbL guys do. Integral part of the startup is telling people about the idea of the project and any know design flaws (like some problems to enforce cc-cy-sa in real world, etc.)
  3. We should make sure that the main idea of that project is to collect data and keep data and contributors and users around. Everything else is secondary IMHO, including commercial interests for members/leaders.

--amai 13:50, 22 August 2010 (BST)

I get the impression that you (Amai) are not interested in a CC-BY-SA fork. You just want to use this platform to bad-mouth those in the project who go ahead with ODbL ("cheating our users & contributors like the ODbL guys do"). Nobody in OSM is cheating.
I call on everybody interested in a CC-BY-SA fork: Either behave professionally and work on setting up that fork, or leave it be. If you build your fork on negativity and all you have to show for yourselves is baseless public smearing like the above, then nobody is going to take you seriously. Are you a political campaign or a community project? Make up your minds. --Frederik Ramm 19:28, 22 August 2010 (BST)
Oh, indeed I don't have interest in any project to support my daily income. So speaking I am "not interested"... Otherwise the interest is here, and I will support on (to be chosen) CC-BY-SA project. So most people are very serious about it, just a bit different than you :-( --amai 22:26, 27 April 2011 (BST)


Somehow we use an improper term here. Keeping the project in the condition that all contributors have agreed to, is not exactly a "fork". odbl is a fork, despite the fact they will take domain,etc. with it. --amai 14:36, 22 August 2010 (BST)

Relationship to PD fork?

We should also discuss the relationship to possible PD forks. Is there any? --amai 17:29, 22 August 2010 (BST)

Server infrastructure

I would like to suggest the following High Performance read/write API alternative for the server infrastructure. Yes it is currently 0.5, but that can be updated if there is any interest. Cherokee/MonetDB Handler OSM --Skinkie 17:37, 22 August 2010 (BST)

Deleting (redirecting) this page

I propose this page be replaced by a redirect to

This page discusses early ideas for a fork. There's lots of unfinished headings on this page, and generally various calls to action to get people to do various things in the run up to having a fork, and of course this was all part of the re-licensing debates taking place in 2012. In other words, all very out of date. But eventually someone went ahead and did something with the creation of

That was all correctly noted with an out-of-date label in 2013 (edit), but six years later I suggest we tidy this away a bit more. Basically delete this page, but replace it with a redirect to

-- Harry Wood (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)