> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 7:42 PM, John Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: >> 2009/12/23 Roy Wallace <[email protected]>: >>> Interestingly, there is NO mention of mapping data. Amazing. How can >>> they continue to omit this from the discussion? >> >> Actually thereg did a good run down on this: >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/23/google_on_open/ >> >> It's not just data they aren't open about... > > Interesting article. From it: "[H]is description of what should be > open avoids all those areas where Google is preternaturally closed. In > some cases, he rationalizes the omissions. In others, he seems > completely oblivious to what's been left out." ... "Like any other > money-driven outfit, Google is open when open suits its needs. And > it's closed when closed suits." > > Still no mention of mapping data, though. Does being closed in that > sense really suit Google's needs? I'm not so sure. >
Then I assume that they see a means of making money out of the mapping. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
