On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 11:53:19AM +0200, Stefan Magdalinski wrote:
> On 5 Jan , at 11:45:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
> > On 05/01/2011 09:37, Stefan Magdalinski wrote:
> >> If I may bring some historical perspective to this, asking permission
> >> is probably not going to get you what you want.
> >>
> >> It certainly would never have worked for upmystreet (we did try, but
> >> they didn't understand the question), faxyourmp (we certainly
> >> didn't), and theyworkforyou (absolutely no way).
> >
> > Then how did you get what you want? Or did you just go ahead and
> > do it anyway, on the basis that you could do it all with data that was
> > already available under a re-publishable licence?
> >
> We published without a licence (and in fact in total contravention
> of the licences available), in the belief that being sued would be a)
> the best publicity we could get, and b) our moral position was so
> defensible (and such a newsworthy story) that they would never dare.
"c) we could do it *so* much better than they could" I remember too
(although I think Stef, James, Manar, Tomski, Stu, Owen &c had maybe a
three year head start on my involvement.)
Damnit that routers don't drop nearly as many packets as they used
to...
> Turned out to be true (much to my personal disappointment), and a
> substantial part of the reason that you have such a lovely range of
> friendly licences for public data is as a result of retrospective
> enabling of licences to support these sites, but the philosophy was
> always...
>
> Ask forgiveness, not permission.
If Gov won't release/change the way judgments are released, and there
is a source of info available, it may be worth shaking the tree a bit.
--
"I am firm. You are obstinate. He is a pig-headed fool."
-- Katharine Whitehorn
_______________________________________________
Mailing list [email protected]
Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
