On 7 April 2011 10:31, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir <[email protected]> wrote: > Surely that's a simple procedural matter then (CT 1.2.4 already has
It always has been, but as others have pointed out, control of the process has gone on largely without proper consultation and feedback to better shape what mappers want. > the "we reserve the right to delete your content for whatever > reason"), especially when changes through the NearMap editor can be Unfortunately the language used as part of that clause isn't strong enough, they may decide it's too difficult and they can't be bothered to remove it. > If LWG can negotiate special conditions > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/d8/Bing_license.pdf) with > Bing, surely they can work something out with NearMap. It seems to me that they don't want to do anything that would limit them from moving to PD in future. > I wouldn't want to get into a situation where you have to negotiate > with every service/data provider (that's the point of open data > licencing!) but a company that covers more area than some european > countries to the community for free deserves a fair go. That isn't the problem since most projects have always used fixed license conditions, eg linux kernel will always be GPL based, in fact it's only commercial companies that require you to hand over all rights like the CTs demand. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
