Hi,
It is very likely that none of the data we collect now will still be
used 20 years from now, because by then everything is so networked and
fully automatic and we have high resolution satellite images of
everywhere etc. etc. - will I then sit there and think it was all for
naught?
I doubt it. I think the value of maps will only continue to rise.
Except, looking into the future 3D maps is where its going to be at.
Maybe a misunderstanding here. I don't doubt that maps will be
everywhere. I just doubt it will be *our* maps or something derived from
them.
Surely not, because the availability of free data *now* makes
sure that the market value of geodata goes down (makes ist more likely
that government agencies will provide them free), and also encourages
people to develop interesting techniques and software to work with that
data.
Er, I'm sure you mean the market cost of geodata. (How much it costs
to obtain maps)
The market value (how much people would pay for them, if they had to
pay) isn't going down anytime soon.
Correct, that's what I meant. (I still think that Teleatlas Co. will
see the value of their products decrease, i.e. the amount of money they
can make from them.)
I think the biggest risk to the data becoming obsoleted is the current
license. Its nigh-on impossible for anyone to build on OSM at the
moment without fear of being sued.
Any share-alike license where the individuals remain the rights-holders
of data they contribute does theoretically open the possibility for any
contributing individual suing any user for perceived breach of license.
Whether this is a problem depends (a) on the risk-adversity of the
potential user, (b) on the lunacy of the contributor and (c) on the
amount of room our license leaves for interpretation (e.g. what is a
derived work, what is proper attribution).
In an earlier discussion somebody suggested that the Foundation draw up
a sort of pledge saying: While the license technically does not affect
the Foundation - it only affects the user of the data and the
contributor granting the license -, the foundation interprets the
license as follows: And will stick to this interpretation if called
upon in legal matters. - Such a statement would at least enable the
potential users to know whether they'd have the foundation on their side
in case they get sued by a contributor.
I'm setting a Followup to legal-talk as such things aren't generally of
interest to people on talk.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
