On 20 August 2010 05:23, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the bigger issues is NearMap mistaking the intention and the word of > the license. We can debate for the next millennia the meaning of a "future > free and open license" under the specific wording of what that might mean. > These are open issues that will take a long time, possibly a lot longer than > the ODbL process to figure out.
You were doing so well until this point, Nearmap's lawyers made those comments. > I don't think we're going to get anywhere bouncing between people who want > everything to be PD (like USGS) and folks who want it to be some variant of > attribution-sharealike and possibly NC (NearMap). Where/when did Nearmap mention NC? > The other way of cooling this off is to not see the ODbL as the final step. I > don't think it was intended to be. Once that's in place, then the field is > open to discuss the next steps. Most disagreement seems to be over CT not ODBL, but they're being sold to us as a package deal, even Nearmap indicated they may not have a problem with ODBL... > Finally, I think the most honest step forward for NearMap and us unless they > show some compromise on things like past data is to just shut it off. Believe > me, there are a lot of other aerial imagery options being pursued hard and > NearMap aren't the be all and end all. If they don't want to play ball and > want to place restrictions on OSM, lets just work on alternatives. Personally I don't think Nearmap is being unreasonable, however the CTs are in my opinion very unreasonable and so far some people have been unwilling to compromise over certain sections. And before anyone asks me again, I do not work for or have ever worked, contracted to or any family member has been employed or contracted to Nearmap, they do not pay me money nor do I receive anything indirectly either. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
