SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > I wouldn't say we chose it. We were told by legal that cc didn't work, so we > spent a lot of time evolving the odbl (originally started by cc folks) and > the CTs. It might look from that side of the planet that it was a hand of god > type decision, but that's not the case. It's been multiple years of work > around every possible solution.
I didn't mean that you and some secret cabal conspired in secret, I meant that OSM-F chose it by whatever process. I also understand that the process was quite long and involved. The end result of the licence being chosen was the important part for my comment, not the process by which it was chosen. > Also, your frame of reference is with OSM up and running and having these > kinds of relationships. When I started OSM we had no data at all and nobody > wanted to give us data under any license, let alone cc. So those of us who > climbed the mountain to get those people to give us data see asking people to > switch (such as ordnance survey for example) as a far smaller problem. I don't see it as a small problem. Australian government data is mostly released under CC licences, which are widely compatible with most open uses. They've hit the 99% mark, so there's not a lot of motivation to change further. OSM-F has placed OSM in the remaining 1%. > Im confused that I was discussing nearmap but you jumped to the government, > what am I missing? The bit where you mentioned "large sclerotic government institutions". I think we've just about covered Nearmap, and the government sources in Australia are collectively the next biggest potential data source. > In any case, as someone who built this project and has convinced many > organizations and government agencies to open up, I urge you to have a longer > timeframe outlook. These types of agencies tend to get with it in the end. > Even the ordnance survey has, for example. You've mentioned Ordnance Survey many times. Are they the only success story? Australian agencies have already gotten with it. We have data available under various open licences. How are Australians supposed to go to the Australian government agencies (individually, of course) and explain that while it's exactly what we've been asking for for a long time, it's not good enough because one specific project chose a licence based on concerns that they needed to protect rights that don't exist in Australia or even in the majority of the world? -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
