On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the
community, Australia being a good example ...
Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of "Australia" to filter
bullshit.
I just want to:
1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never
be deleted.
We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including
getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As
far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click
'accept'.
2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome.
Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm
aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change
license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license.
For all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and
until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for
data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data
remains open but also not going through this horrific license process
again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years
time.
We could have drawn that line a bit more to one side and defined the
license or we could have drawn it a bit the other way and said that
every single contributor has to accept again. Either way there will be
detractors. The LWG is a bunch of volunteers and they spent a ton of
time making that judgement and whatever they chose it would be imperfect.
I prefer the LWG making a careful decision to the opposite extreme of
"do whatever nearmap says" (not that they ever made demands to my
knowledge) as it would be short sighted to deflect the project for one
company.
If you look at Bing on the other hand, I believe we're entirely happy
giving imagery derivation rights under the future direction outlined
above. So, I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial
providers (or wait for them to catch up) given Bing's enlightened
example rather than bowing to their short-term goals. Even Ordnance
Survey have been great to work with through these issues. Even OS!
So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no
longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large
sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about
this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
