OpenStreetMap
I've seen quoted on a mailing list that 130 persons have signed up to ODbL in 12 weeks.
A bit of work with the calculator lets me predict that to have the 12,500 mappers who have contributed 99% of the data signed up will take until January 2033 at that rate.
Discussion
Comment from Richard on 26 November 2010 at 09:20
Er, 55 a day, not 130 in 12 weeks. http://neis-one.org/2010/11/23/short-update/
About as close to the truth as your assertion that people creating an .img Garmin map would have to host the entire planet file, which can be trivially disproved by actually reading ODbL. You're not very good with the whole "facts" thing, are you?
Comment from drlizau on 26 November 2010 at 09:45
I didn't quote a number for new signees. I quoted a number for existing mappers, from a mail on talk@openstreetmap.org.
So the calculation about the 12,500 mappers.
If I was to be concerned about the average 38 mappers per day quoted on http://neis-one.org/2010/11/23/short-update/ then my numerator would be the two or 3 hundred thousand persons signed up to OSM in total.
And the ODbL - actually I have read it.
It says one OR the other. It doesn't say who decides, and then it is decided by courts and lawyers. If the licence was fully written out, it would say at whose discretion you got a planet dump or got a script.
Comment from Richard on 26 November 2010 at 10:05
You quoted John Whelan's mail which was talking about the "should we go ahead with this?" vote put to OSMF members (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000751.html), and equated it with the number of mappers who have signed up to ODbL+CT - entirely different.
As for the "or" point, do you think the same when CC-BY-SA says "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License"? That the "or" will be decided by courts and lawyers, and they might force you to include the whole licence rather than the URL?
Comment from davespod on 26 November 2010 at 14:19
Forgive my confusion, but it seems to me that the numbers quoted on http://neis-one.org/2010/11/23/short-update/ do relate to existing mappers only. The figures come from here:
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/users_agreed/users_agreed.txt
And this list specifically excludes mappers who have joined OSM since agreeing to the CTs became mandatory for new sign-ups. This list stands at around 4,800 today.
If I understand your equation correctly, then plugging in the 4,800 figure would give April 2011. Of course, that assumes everyone will eventually agree to the new CTs, and you have not stated the basis of that assumption (so I'll have to take your word for it).
Of course, what we don't have figures for is the rate at which those specific 12,500 mappers are signing up. But, it seems that should not be too difficult to calculate from the data available.
The best resource we currently have that takes account of volume of contributions is:
http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png
Comment from Former OSM contributor on 26 November 2010 at 23:57
It matters little, I believe how many and who signed what and where. I have reluctantly signed all my previous work over to whoever comes out on top in this. Added to that, and since reading about the change of licence, I have added minor GPS tracked old data to this once worthy project. It is now dead in the water from my point of view because we are now in the hands of lawyers. I can see no point personally in continuing what I started over 12 months ago.
I am afraid that including the threatened removal of O.S.S.V. data that seems will get wiped, the setback will make the map of the U.K. a barren surface compared to countries such as Germany.
Comment from davespod on 27 November 2010 at 21:27
@Andrew - I don't think anyone is threatening to remove OS Street View data. Rather, a number of people have raised concerns about whether its licence is compatible with (a) ODBL and (b) the new contributor terms. The Licence Working Group are looking at this issue with the lawyers, and taking lots of suggestions from mappers on board. If I understand correctly, there are several ways in which this issue might be resolved .
I am saddened that the planned relicensing has dampened your enthusiasm. Is it a problem with the new licence, or the simply the fact that there are heated discussions about the potential ramifications of this change, that is worrying you? If it is the latter I think it is important to note that there are very strongly expressed views on both sides from a tiny minority of the mappers out there. It is easy to get the impression from the mailing lists that the project is being torn asunder by these discussions, when actually most people are probably just getting on with mapping as before.
In the end, the relicensing will either happen or it won't, and whichever is the result, things should calm down after that and the project will move on (in my humble opinion).
@drlizau - apologies for using your diary entry as a discussion board!
Comment from Richard on 27 November 2010 at 22:34
CT 1.2 revised is compatible with the OS OpenData licence. It will not get wiped.
Comment from Former OSM contributor on 28 November 2010 at 12:25
@drlizau - It should be I who apologises for using your diary entry as a discussion board! I have now taken the discussion to mail with davespod.