On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:01 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: >> John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - >> that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could >> happen at any point. > > The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map > data being share alike. > >> 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive >> view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so >> on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license? > > I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs, > specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL > is.
Do you think nearmap are being reasonable? I don't think they are. There are a variety of downsides with working with open communities - one of them is that they are flexible and change over time with many different opinions. A bunch of people here wanted that change in section 3 (do you agree that was reasonable?). I don't think we can change OSM sufficiently to cater to nearmaps terms of interaction if they are that static - or the hundreds of other companies who will then have their own demands and terms of interaction. Someone, somewhere (namely the LWG) has to make a balance between those who want nearmap and those who want those CT changes. I think they should probably go with the new CTs sadly rather than go with nearmap. It's not a nice choice but I don't see any alternatives, do you? Steve stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
