2009/9/17 Barry Hunter <[email protected]> > On 17/09/2009, Brian Butterworth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Paul, > > > > Yes, I suspect you are technically right. > > > > My feelings on the matter as they have always been. It would be good for > > the country as a whole for this data to be public, rather than being > charged > > for. I have never heard a rational argument for data that is about the > > public domain not being in it. > > I beleive the 'official' reason is it costs serious money for Royal > Mail (and partners) to keep the database upto date (and of course the > money (ie time/effort) to build the database in the first place. >
It's a bit like paying extra for room service in a hotel. I always think "if you didn't bring me my meal, I'm hardly going to pay for it". Firstly, it is the Post Office that insist you stick postcodes on things they are to deliver. Secondly, the Post Office would have to maintain the list of addresses that it forces on everyone else whatever. It matters not if they sell it or post it for free on the net. The list should be transferred to a public body, funded by the Post Office and made downloadable by everyone. Last time I looked, the Post Office wasn't privatized yet. > > Even in the 'public domain' it would still cost money to keep it > uptodate (it would be expected!) - and that money would have to come > from somewhere. > > The the data is commercially managed to be able to cover the costs of > making it. > > (not saying that is right or I agree with it! > > if 'opened' that the community could take over responisibly of > maintaining it - and hence make the cost negliblie - not sure if that > has occured to them* > > * But as the data is also used commerically, some businesses might not > like to use community data, perfering commerical data with data > quality contracts. > > ) > > - dual licencing? Dump a version in the public domain, but absolve > itself of any responsiblity of maintainaince. And then maintain the > commerical version for people who do want it (and can afford to pay!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2009/9/17 Paul Webster <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:26:55 +0100, you wrote: > > > > > > >2009/9/16 Stephen Jolly <[email protected]> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> On 16 Sep 2009, at 18:53, Tim Dobson wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> What do people think? > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Reminds me of when some of the Windows 2000 code was leaked - if > > anything > > > >> the leak was worse than useless, since the open-source projects that > > could > > > >> have benefited from it obviously couldn't look at it without > becoming > > > >> copyright infringers, and the people behind legitimate > > reverse-engineering > > > >> efforts always had to be looking out for suspicious contributions > from > > > >> well-meaning idiots. > > > >> > > > > > > > >It's nothing like that. Source code is source code, you can reverse > > > >engineer it. This file is a CSV file, with a helpful first row of > column > > > >names. > > > > > > > Just because this is a zipped up csv file rather than a "database" does > > not seem to exempt it from "Database Right" > > > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19973032.htm > > > Where a database is defined as: > > > " Databases > > > 3A. - (1) In this Part "database" means a collection of > independent > > works, data or other materials which - > > > > > > (a) are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and > > > > > > (b) are individually accessible by electronic or other means. > > > > > > (2) For the purposes of this Part a literary work consisting of a > > database is original if, and only if, by reason of > > > the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database the > database > > constitutes the author's own intellectual > > > creation.". > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right > > > > > > -- > > > Rgds > > > Paul Webster > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > please > > visit > > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > > Unofficial list archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Brian Butterworth > > > > follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist > > web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and > switchover > > advice, since 2002 > > > > > -- > Barry > > - www.nearby.org.uk - www.geograph.org.uk - > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
