I would support it being free for non-commercial use - but oppose taxpayers being forced to subsidise commercial operations - commercial operations need to please their customers or go bust they should not twist taxpayers arms to subsidise them.
As it happens... I don't think postcode/log-lat is covered by database IP anyway - Assembling the database requires no particular effort, it is a simple by-product of the royal mails core operations (delivering mail) - and there cannot be anything less complex than a simple lookup table. Paul /)/+) 2009/10/12 Jonathan Hogg <[email protected]> > On 11 Oct 2009, at 13:44, Owen Blacker wrote: > > > With respect, I think that's an overwhelmingly foolish decision. > > > > Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. If we don't make a > > start here, we won't ever achieve the fully free postcodes that > > everyone here wants. > > I've heard this "perfect vs good enough" line a couple of times now > and I don't buy it. > > If you are lobbying Royal Mail, then the best you can hope for is a > free, or low-cost, non-profit license as it probably won't cost them > much, is an easy PR win and takes the heat off any discussion of the > thorny problem of what right they have as a pseudo-commercial > corporation to sell a database built using public funds. > > However, this is a discussion centred around a No 10 petition. If you > are lobbying ministers then you are lobbying for the wrong thing. This > isn't a story that makes much sense to me. The Royal Mail doesn't care > about the benefits to self-employed people, small businesses and the > wider economy, but MPs *can* be convinced of these things. All these > people, who some here seem to think of as freeloaders on the public > purse, are also known as constituents and tax-payers. > > I'm not asking for the perfect, I'm asking for the sensible. If you > want free postcodes then this drains valuable momentum from the > campaign with something that MPs and Royal Mail will see as addressing > the immediate problem and therefore absolves them of the > responsibility to consider the bigger issue - a particular waste at a > time when we can capture some media attention and have already gotten > at least one vocal MP interested in the issue. It also entrenches the > view that commercial use is somehow "bad" or "different" and, most > disappointingly to me, makes it appear that we, as a community, agree > with this view. > > If all you really want is for MySociety and other non-profit web- > mashups to be able to use the database without having to pay, then go > ahead, but I won't support it. > > > Yes, this might give RM a vaguely-easy PR win; it's up to us to make > > sure that the media spin it as "just a start". > > I don't think the media are going to care less about the "just a > start" story: it will be lost in the "won't somebody think of the > children" charity white-noise. > > > I'd beseech you to change your mind and sign this petition. Divide > > and conquer is even more effective when we do it to ourselves. > > "Divide and conquer" only makes sense here if you believe we were > initially united in our view and that somehow this is a conspiracy by > the Royal Mail, otherwise it's just patronising nonsense. If you have > a solid argument as to how a non-profit license is a step towards free > postcodes rather than a step backwards, I'd love to hear it. > > I'm disappointed that discourse on this subject is reducing to the > level of badgering people who disagree. > > Jonathan > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
