On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:54 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> 2009/12/11 Anthony :
>>
> > Plus I think OSM is going to lose a huge chunk of the database over this.
>>
>> This would be a disaster, but some have already mentioned having a
>> read only da
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:54 AM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/11 Anthony :
>
> Plus I think OSM is going to lose a huge chunk of the database over this.
>
> This would be a disaster, but some have already mentioned having a
> read only database with non-ODBL data and then combining it on the
> tile
Op 11 dec 2009, om 10:11 heeft John Smith het volgende geschreven:
> 2009/12/11 Paul Wagener :
>> This might sound like a crazy idea, but can't we just ask businesses
>> nicely about giving us their added data back?
>> It has already got us this far. You'd be surprised how far a little
>> mutual
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/11 Paul Wagener :
>> This might sound like a crazy idea, but can't we just ask businesses
>> nicely about giving us their added data back?
>> It has already got us this far. You'd be surprised how far a little
>> mutual trust can get you.
>
> Isn't that in essence what
Saying "This would be a disaster" is a bit hyperbolic. Sure, people
who hate OSMapping and just want to use bulk imports will be very,
very disappointed, and possibly even a bit upset that they actually
have to go out into the real world and make maps. ;-)
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:54 AM, John S
2009/12/11 Paul Wagener :
> This might sound like a crazy idea, but can't we just ask businesses
> nicely about giving us their added data back?
> It has already got us this far. You'd be surprised how far a little
> mutual trust can get you.
Isn't that in essence what licenses are for?
_
This might sound like a crazy idea, but can't we just ask businesses
nicely about giving us their added data back?
It has already got us this far. You'd be surprised how far a little
mutual trust can get you.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap
2009/12/11 Anthony :
> I see no evidence that that's the case. I don't think attempting to impose
> a contractual agreement on others without their consent is going to work,
> and I think there will be significant negative side-effects to such immoral
> behavior.
I don't think immoral is the righ
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:14 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/11 Anthony :
> > It's not. However, if we could convince businesses to "give back to the
> > community", it'd be better.
>
> If you feel that way, the ODBL would in principal be the better option
> to ensure it happens with a stick just
2009/12/11 Anthony :
> It's not. However, if we could convince businesses to "give back to the
> community", it'd be better.
If you feel that way, the ODBL would in principal be the better option
to ensure it happens with a stick just to make sure.
___
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:03 AM, paul youlten wrote:
> Where does this "Business Bad:OSM good" binary come from? (I suspect
> the Germans ;-))
>
No idea. Like I said, as a self-employed person, I find the distinction
incredibly confusing :). Business is great. It's what puts food on my
table
The Orange Telecom/Wikimedia Foundation business model is one that
might work for OSM too.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009
Orange pay the Wikimedia Foundation a significant amount of money each
year - not for permission to us
Hi,
paul youlten wrote:
> I don't understand how a business using OSM data for free and without
> "thinking of the children" (AKA "giving back to the community") is
> bad for the project - every time we get "ripped off" we get a bigger
> audience, the more people that use the data the more more i
Where does this "Business Bad:OSM good" binary come from? (I suspect
the Germans ;-))
I don't understand how a business using OSM data for free and without
"thinking of the children" (AKA "giving back to the community") is
bad for the project - every time we get "ripped off" we get a bigger
aud
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If Steve were to say "let's go PD", everone would howl: "You're only doing
> this so that CloudMade can rip us off!"
>
> If Steve says "let's go ODbL", he is accused of only doing this because it
> keeps CloudMade in business by making things
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> It's a difficult situation being OSMF chairman, LWG leader, and
> CloudMade founder at the same time. (I did campaign for no commercial
> interests to be represented in the OSMF board in the election run-up
> but, as always, nobody listened...)
Conflict
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
> Or we can just come right out and name names. Google has built a
> business around mixing public domain data with its own proprietary
> improvements. Cloudmade has build a business around "provid[ing]
> professional services around open mapdata". If everyone who improves
On 12/9/09, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses is
> the main benefit? I would have thought the main benefits would be for
> individuals, and to avoid future licensing issues. Once data is licensed PD,
> you really don't need to ever deal
Hi,
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses
> is the main benefit?
No, but those against PD are sometimes accusing those in favour of PD
that they had some sinister business motive; or in this special case,
there's a business guy who say
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses is
> the main benefit? I would have thought the main benefits would be for
> individuals, and to avoid future licensing issues.
>
I don't know. This whole businesses
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> This doesn't necessarily mean that share-alike is *good* for business,
> but I believe that the difficulties that share-alike brings are prone to
> hit a law-abiding hobbyist individual harder than a business giant with
> a legal department
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>I would like to counter another often-repeated misconception about
> PD (or CC0, or BSD) licenses, namely that these licenses are better for
> business because they allow businesses to do what they want.
>
> The matter arose in the
Hi,
I would like to counter another often-repeated misconception about
PD (or CC0, or BSD) licenses, namely that these licenses are better for
business because they allow businesses to do what they want.
The matter arose in the follwoing exchange here on talk:
> As I've said many times
23 matches
Mail list logo
