Steve, I'm trying to be on your side.
But as chairman of the OSMF board, you really need to pick your words better. By saying "which every rational person I know thinks is the best step forward - the ODbL", you are implying that a lot of people are irrational. I see that your company recently raised $12m, and I deduce that your goal is to make money. And that will be harder if NT and TA can use our data. My goal and that of many other OSM contributors have nothing to do with money. We want people to use the data. If some of the data leaks because of the current license, then it may not be a bad thing. Then it may be simpler to solve the other issues with the current license by presenting each user with a number of check boxes like this: [ ] I give the OSMF the right to sue persons for copyright infringement on my behalf. [ ] Should the OSMF choose not to take legal action, I will not sue anyone myself. [ ] For the purposes of the Share-Alike clause, I interpret "alike" as meaning ... ... Even if we do not get 100% response, then we remove some of the uncertainty with the current license. One thing we certainly we do not want is closed discussions with lawyers. Regards, Nic On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:23 PM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data > hostage in this way. We all have our different opinions on the license, but > the point is that we need to do something going forward which will be on > average better for everyone. It won't be perfect. Therefore we have to make > compromises. > > NearMap have some valid things they pointed out might make the CT's better. > The LWG has had approximately 12 hours (from memory) to look at them, and > for all we know might think they're awesome and change. Maybe not. We don't > know. > > That's not the same thing as "oh my god we should do whatever NearMap want > us to do". > > Therefore it's a discussion about the points in the CT's, which may or may > not be changed. Not just "do whatever NearMap says". > > I think a much better position from NearMap would be to compromise on the > data already in. Say, yes the data already derived can be used under the > CT's. Then work with the LWG to fix the issues they see. You can't really > put "it's not our place as a company to try and direct or influence the > direction of OSM." at the end of an email which is all about trying to > direct and influence the directions of the LWG and OSM and expect to be > taken seriously. I'd be more honest and say, yes, we do want to change the > direction so that it suits our business better. Because that's the reality > as I see it. And it's not really that bad. > > I think the bigger issues is NearMap mistaking the intention and the word > of the license. We can debate for the next millennia the meaning of a > "future free and open license" under the specific wording of what that might > mean. These are open issues that will take a long time, possibly a lot > longer than the ODbL process to figure out. > > I don't think we're going to get anywhere bouncing between people who want > everything to be PD (like USGS) and folks who want it to be some variant of > attribution-sharealike and possibly NC (NearMap). We need to move forward in > the spirit of compromise on to something which every rational person I know > thinks is the best step forward - the ODbL. > > The other way of cooling this off is to not see the ODbL as the final step. > I don't think it was intended to be. Once that's in place, then the field is > open to discuss the next steps. > > Finally, I think the most honest step forward for NearMap and us unless > they show some compromise on things like past data is to just shut it off. > Believe me, there are a lot of other aerial imagery options being pursued > hard and NearMap aren't the be all and end all. If they don't want to play > ball and want to place restrictions on OSM, lets just work on alternatives. > > Steve > > stevecoast.com > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Peter. > > > > 2010/8/19 Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhau...@gmail.com>: > >> If it's about NearMap, then talk-au seems more appropriate. > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> > wrote: > >>>> this discussion must move to legal-talk. > >>> > >>> If we don't change the contributor terms, then we lose NearMap. > >>> > >>> That's not a legal discussion. > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> talk mailing list > >>> talk@openstreetmap.org > >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> talk mailing list > >> talk@openstreetmap.org > >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > mortigi tempo > > Pēteris Krišjānis > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
