This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws.
Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood? Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 19:10, James Andrewartha <tr...@student.uwa.edu.au> wrote: > On 7 July 2011 22:55, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: >> On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> 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'. > > As I said in an email to you, I disagree with the concept of a > database right, or using contract law to emulate it, which has no > precedent in Australia. Also, I dislike contributor agreements in free > software projects, and the CTs are a similar concept. They restrict > the use of data from governments and other third parties. Now, there > is an argument over whether that data should be kept separate as > layers, but I haven't seen that discussed at all. Finally, as I read > it the Nearmap grant doesn't let me relicense my existing CC-BY-SA > contributions as ODbL as I hadn't signed the CT when I made them. > >> 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. > > Disclosure: I am a shareholder; I bought shares partly because they > used OSM for their maps. > >> 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. > > However, due to the CT governments have to contribute their data > directly rather than letting even more agile citizens do it for them. > > James Andrewartha > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au