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
