Yes. Thanks Chris. That's exactly what I wanted to say. And if
geodata becomes more open, I hope our GeoDRM framework will support a
seamless transition.
---
Raj
On Oct 16, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 05:59:59PM +0200, Lars Aronsson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the (few) benefits of having used the term GeoDRM for the
present geo-rights work is that it does flush out people who are
mainly looking for a demon to hunt and use abusive language
rather than actually talking and thinking about how intellectual
property rights work for all Web users.
That's not the case in geodata. What we have is a bunch of
European national government agencies that for centuries gathered
geodata, paid for by the tax payers, and now they are selling it
by the minute as if they were a private entity that owned it.
While in fact we, the people, own them.
And *no* level of rights management, technical or otherwise, is
going to
be the primary factor in changing that. The problem is, at its
heart, a
social one, and a naming convention, or even social and technical
decisions made by OGC, will not change the fact that there is a large
social block against sane treatment of geographic data collected by
European National Mapping Agencies. Blaming the OGC for that is
ridiculous.
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
