On 10 Oct 2009, at 16:09, Ian Eiloart wrote: > Just sign it. We'll work on the other half later. Don't let perfection > be the enemy of the good.
Having thought about it a bit more I have decided that in fact I won't. Two other messages on this list have expressed my concern quite well: On 10 Oct 2009, at 13:42, Richard wrote: > I just feel it hands RM a quick and easy PR 'getout' on a platter - > while prolonging the pain for everyone else. and: On 10 Oct 2009, at 15:21, Dan Brickley wrote: > I'd prefer to stick with the simpler message, that the data should be > public and free for all to use. And if it helps anyone make money, so > much the better. Once it's half-free and the nonprofits are happy, > it'll be much harder to keep the pressure on for it to be completely > opened up. I agree that getting a non-profit exemption will make it harder to campaign for fully opening the database for any use. In particular, if we go to the bother of lobbying MPs on the issue we shouldn't lobby for a half-measure as they are unlikely to listen again if we come back and ask for more. The right thing to campaign for is for it to be fully opened; not because I'm a "data wants to be free" tree-hugger, but because I believe it is the right thing to do economically: the current system enriches a pseudo-public corporation at the expense of impoverishing the wider economy. I think this is a message that can be understood by MPs. With the current public debt situation, anything that increases GDP is a good thing. Jonathan _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
