On Sep 28, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Dave F. wrote: > On 28/09/2010 20:27, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Dave F. wrote: >>>> When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then? >>>> Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth >>>> your time >>> >>> No I have not & you know that. >>> >>> Most of my posts have been questions which I notice you've been unable to >>> answer. >> >> The post which I replied to did not contain a single question, >> >> Your general question was whether OS data is interoperable with OdbL+CT (you >> asked whether somebody could "confirm" or "deny" that); in further posts you >> made it clear that you would find it "sad" and "hard to conceive" if it were >> not so. > > And how did you correlate that with it not being worth my time?! > >> >> I cannot confirm or deny your original question; but I wanted to say that it >> is in no way "sad" or "hard to conceive" if the license that OSM chooses is >> not compatible with a handful of government data licenses around the world. >> We are certainly not going to let the OS dictate the license we choose for >> our data. > > It's amazing how you try & shift the guilt/blame. > > From where I'm standing it looks like the OSM Foundation is doing all the > dictating. > > They went to the OS & demanded they release their data. When they did, OSMF > almost immediately turn back to them & say "oh we don't want it now". That's > what I'm finding hard to conceive.
Meanwhile, back in Reality... The OSMF made no such demands, didn't turn it's back, and in fact has a healthy and friendly relationship with many people at the OS. In fact, I even helped the OS with the first version of OpenSpace. You paranoid guys really keep pushing the bounds of crazy to come up with these conspiracy theories. Steve stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
