On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:17 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: > I am a volunteer member (like all the members) of the Licensing > Working Group (LWG), OSM Sysadmin Team along with a few other > OpenStreetMap groups.
Does this mean we can ask (and receive definitive answers from) you the hard questions that have been asked numerous times and no-one has been in a position to ask? Or are you just another 'volunteer' who will pass the questions off to some hidden mailing list somewhere? > The LWG is well aware of the NearMap licensing issue and we are trying > to get it resolved as soon as we can but we are an all volunteer team > with day jobs. I think youre looking at the problem too narrowly. Yes, the NearMap issue is a significant one to Australians, but it is only one of many numerous sources that all share the same common licence. The 'nearmap issue' is an issue affecting data from many sources, some private stakeholders and some government stakeholders. Are the efforts to 'resolve' the 'issues' looking at all Australian (and similarly NZ) data sources, or are efforts simply being used to sort out specifics with NearMap? > The Contributor Terms v1.2.4 reduces the project's > freedoms in an attempt to appease NearMap. Kind of like stabbing someone with a dagger, then pulling it out half-way and telling them they should be happy you even did that? > Unfortunately there are some very vocal (anonymous) members of the > Australian community who seem intent on creating a virtual "Us vs > Them" conflict in the community with exaggerated claims and mistruths. > We are one project and on the same team. I believe we all value the > amazing project we have collaboratively built. Did you seriously write that with a straight face? Lets address the points.. There has been vocal opposition to the change to a licence incompatible with our data. This has come from government departments, businesses and educated users, not 'anonymous members'. The problem with the mistruths and claims, is that most people simply dont know, and in Australia if someone asks you a question, its generally polite to at least offer some advice rather than rudely ignore whoever is asking. There are people who are seeking to split the community, you are correct. These people are the ones who are bringing in a licence change and preventing those who dont agree from participating any longer in this 'amazing project we have *ALL* collaboratively built'. If youd followed discussions here from the past couple of days, youd see people actively encouraging the use of OSM services (in favour of forks) until the time at which we are permanently blocked from the collaborative project. > The much-maligned OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSM-F, OSMF) is a > not-for-profit company registered in England & Wales as a legal entity > to represent the project. The OSMF is not some nefarious entity out to > steal all our precious geodata ZOMG. A non-for-profit company? It barely even legally qualifies as a non-for-profit (dis)organisation. Maybe youve also missed the detailed criticisms of the foundation from members here, who ARE involved with non-profits, things such as poor minute keeping and basic accountability. Your contempt for the citizens of this country and this region, while talking as a representative of a legal entity is part in parcel of what we are becoming used to. It is sad that people (or even entire committees) seem happy enough to tear this project apart from the inside, simply to achieve some goal which it seems even they cant quite decide upon. David _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au