On 7 July 2011 22:55, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: >> >> You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the >> community, Australia being a good example ... > > Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of "Australia" to filter > bullshit. > I just want to: > 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be > deleted. > > We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting > clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm > aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'.
As I said in an email to you, I disagree with the concept of a database right, or using contract law to emulate it, which has no precedent in Australia. Also, I dislike contributor agreements in free software projects, and the CTs are a similar concept. They restrict the use of data from governments and other third parties. Now, there is an argument over whether that data should be kept separate as layers, but I haven't seen that discussed at all. Finally, as I read it the Nearmap grant doesn't let me relicense my existing CC-BY-SA contributions as ODbL as I hadn't signed the CT when I made them. > 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. > > Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm > aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change > license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For > all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC > release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data > licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open > but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future > if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. Disclosure: I am a shareholder; I bought shares partly because they used OSM for their maps. > So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no > longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large > sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. > The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. However, due to the CT governments have to contribute their data directly rather than letting even more agile citizens do it for them. James Andrewartha _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
