<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:waldo000000@gmail.com">waldo000000@gmail.com</a> wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANE7HzhCntK4+139VZReJSckD9gCbMnBkWHOeSaV5Erxw90AVg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve
Coast <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:steve@asklater.com">steve@asklater.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
</div>
</div>
You've been very successful at perverting certain sections
of the community, Australia being a good example ...</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of
"Australia" to filter bullshit. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I just want to:</div>
<div>1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data
will never be deleted. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including
getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many
others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why
you can't click 'accept'.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANE7HzhCntK4+139VZReJSckD9gCbMnBkWHOeSaV5Erxw90AVg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as
I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can
change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open
license. For all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change
again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will
contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between
making sure the data remains open but also not going through this
horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is
suddenly better in 3-5 years time.<br>
<br>
We could have drawn that line a bit more to one side and defined the
license or we could have drawn it a bit the other way and said that
every single contributor has to accept again. Either way there will
be detractors. The LWG is a bunch of volunteers and they spent a ton
of time making that judgement and whatever they chose it would be
imperfect.<br>
<br>
I prefer the LWG making a careful decision to the opposite extreme
of "do whatever nearmap says" (not that they ever made demands to my
knowledge) as it would be short sighted to deflect the project for
one company.<br>
<br>
If you look at Bing on the other hand, I believe we're entirely
happy giving imagery derivation rights under the future direction
outlined above. So, I believe we should spend energy enlightening
aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) given Bing's
enlightened example rather than bowing to their short-term goals.
Even Ordnance Survey have been great to work with through these
issues. Even OS!<br>
<br>
So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they
no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do -
even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and
helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every
change their minds.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
</body>
</html>