On 6/30/08, Anselm Hook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All social data products should be clearly licensed to 1) recognize, 2) > promote and 3) not hinder an inalienable right that we have to our own data > but also an inalienable right we have to the data of our peers where they so > agree to share it with us.
"should be"? Who says? Last I checked, this was a product created by a publicly traded, for-profit company headquartered in a mostly free-market economy. There is no "should be" here other than what one feels like or wants to do. We have an inalienable right to our own data, at least in the US, and that is about it. We have absolutely no right to the data of our peers unless our peers give that right to us. We have all the right in the world to choose to use what product we want to. Last I checked, Google had not come into my computer and forced me to use their MapMaker. If I find their terms onerous, I won't use them. If I couldn't care about their terms but find their functionality useful, I will use them. Google has not swayed me away from OSM or MapServer or OpenLayers. Google has simply provided another map making alternative which might be useful to a constituency quite different from that of OSM. Look at it from Google's point of view -- they have made a product and they are asking for joe-public to contribute data voluntarily. They also want to cover their butts so joe-public doesn't change her/his mind later on and try to sue them or extract something out of them. So they say -- hey, you are welcome to give us your work, but if you do, you give us the right to do whatever the heck we want to with it. Of course, you don't give up your own right to do whatever you want to with it, and you continue to own it. Its just that what you have given to us is now for us to use howsoever we want. I still see nothing wrong with this. Apple does the same thing. If you send them a product suggestion, they will simply ignore it. They don't want to create the next, billion dollar iWhat and then have someone from po-dunk saying he wants a piece of that. That is standard practice. This is similar -- once you edit something in Google's MapMaker, that edit still belongs to you but they also get the right to do what they want to with it. Besides, you are getting to use the data of your peers. Edits added by others are visible to you, and hopefully, a better crowd-made map emerges. I hope to be part of an open source movement that doesn't browbeat others to join it, but offers a viable, useful and attractive alternative that competes on merit *and* philosophy. I want to like open source because I like open source, not because I hate the other kind. I can live with both. I do live with both. > > For MapServer this could be accomplished by letting people state the CC > license they wish. The implementation of that license should go out of its > way to facilitate the sharing so that there is no doubt as to intention. > This means encoding an open policy not just as a statement but as an API. > One that encourages access to this data without liability for at most a cost > recovery basis - privacy issues being respected. That's the highest bar. > > By API I specifically mean; > > - select for all edits by all persons over a geographic area that are > licensed freely > - select for just my edits > - bulk download at some not insane rate > > What does it take for an organization to internalize open data principles at > the highest level rather than just having a business as usual default mode? > What does it take for Google employees to always instinctively say "oh, we > need to always always let users define the licensing terms?". > > Maybe all product releases at Google should have a like 10 point inspection > for these kinds of issues because it keeps coming up. > > Look at Flickr. Flickr actively goes out of its way to permit users to > declare the appropriate creative commons license and presents an API which > makes it easy to select for that data. How did Flickr even organizationally > get to that point? It is a courageous data policy as opposed to a data > policy. > > Look at Wikipedia. They state an intention and purpose that acknowledges > and tries to respect our inalienable right. "The license Wikipedia uses > grants free access to our content in the same sense that free software is > licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. Wikipedia content can > be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the > same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia > article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to > satisfy the attribution requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will > remain free under the GFDL and can be used by anybody subject to certain > restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom.". > > We do know that more people will probably start doing mapping via a very > easy to use widely distributed highly robust well advertised service > leveraging already existing (closed) data with a significant support staff > that ties directly into the everyday email and web search tools as opposed > to a resource starved open source effort. > > Once again there is that kind of curious Google genius that keeps cropping > up; like they can't really see the world from other peoples point of view. > Maybe if MapMaker had each trace licensed with a CC license then maybe it > would do better. Maybe not. Maybe truly free licensing would create a > bigger platform for everybody; foster an eco-system; encourage more brains > to look at the issues; take us all to a place where we could all see even > more interesting and bigger challenges... Or maybe MapMaker would be > crushed by the free giveaways by a thousand competitors eating at a free > buffet. Or maybe Teleatlas would sue for derivative works. Either way it > feels like the licensing terms are not a reflection of any mental muscle on > the subject - it looks like pro-forma knee jerk baggage from the circa 2000 > ancient history of the web. > > - a > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Ian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Puneet > > > > You're not thinking about the developer community and Google legacy here. > What G is doing is a fine (and smart) business arrangement, and it is their > prerogative. What makes people like me and Steve angry is that the > do-no-evil company is attempting to co-op yet another corner of the > (traditional) open community. I'm the first guy to say greed is good, but > not when you parade around touting the virtues of openness. And there's > nothing new here--G's been doing this for some time, it's just that this > seems to be such an egregious violation of the geo-trust they've > established. It's not a conspiracy-minded belief, it's factual--google > believes it can out-open the open community in geo, transit, wiki and other > areas. But google gets to reap those benefits, unless something changes. For > those of us who are active in this community, there's been increased > consternation and criticism of G, and for good reason--it's all grown up and > needs to start acting like it. The PR/goodwill is (slowly) fading. The > masses are in love with google products, and I also think they are pretty > damn good. But there's a cost. I love making money. But I don't behave in a > way to make it seem that it is a necessary evil. > > -- Puneet Kishor _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
