On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Frederik Ramm<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Nick Barnes wrote: >> Point taken, but Wikipedia isn't trying to position itself as a viable >> and reliable alternative for a mission critical commercial solution (I'm >> thinking about mapping for SatNav devices here). > > I don't think we should either, because this leads to more control and > less freedom.
+1 even "mission critical commercial solution" providers have a limitation of liability in their terms of use which basically says "these data may contain errors, you can use it at your own risk, but you can't sue us." e.g: 10a from the tomtom ToS: "TomTom does not and cannot warrant that the Products operate in a manner that is completely error-free nor that any information provided is always accurate. Calculation errors may occur when using navigation systems such as those caused by local environmental conditions and/or incomplete or incorrect data." e.g: from Garmin's about page: "The user is solely responsible for safe navigation and the prudent use of any Garmin Cartography product." i tend to find that commercial solutions are often no better than free ones, they just give you someone to sue. ubuntu and redhat offer commercial support, but i don't think their commercial offerings are technically better than their free ones - they just give you someone to scream at over the phone when your boss is screaming at you and you can't fix it yourself ;-) cheers, matt _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
