On Jul 18, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 18 July 2010 22:51, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: >> Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing >> effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it >> seriously? > > Most likely ODBL is fine, it's the CTs that is the biggest hurdle.
Allowing one company or organisation to dictate the projects license or direction isn't a good idea. It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we should do, so they can just use our data. Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example. Is it really a valid argument that we should do whatever Google or Nearmap say we should do, when all of their competitors are happy to work with us? I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens. Steve stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
