<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000066">
Richard Fairhurst wrote on 23/08/2010 12:00:
<blockquote cite="mid:1282561241266-5452178.post@n2.nabble.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Phillip Barnett wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the
potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be
dropping this rather quickly?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I like the "we" there - much better than the usual "Richard". Really looking
forward to the patch to the API so that users can retrieve their own CT
status, and the patch to Potlatch's background layer selector to take
account of this. Plus a manual override for users who are aware of what's
substantial and what isn't, so therefore know what they can legitimately
use. And the resulting Potlatch testing and recompile, plus submitting it
through this bizarre git thing which the Rails port now appears to use (and
which I still haven't figured out). All "rather quickly".
No?
Ah well, it was a nice thought.
Assuming no-one steps up to the plate and codes, tests and submits a patch,
I'll look at it (and NearMap too) next week or so when I'm not on deadline
with the day job. But I have every confidence that the issue, which is
trivial and easily fixable by a slight clarification to the CTs will be
fixed soon at any rate. I realise the scaremongers (not you, Phillip) will
then have to find something else to wibble about, but hey.
Sometimes I think we need Michael Winner on these licence threads to come
and say "calm down, dear" at regular intervals.
cheers
Richard
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Isn't the real issue that:<br>
<br>
1) OS, through the Government have responded to a need and have
provided useful data with no unreasonable restrictions on its use.<br>
2) For reasons of principle, the powers that be in OSM are unable to
modify a general stance into something that reflects a special
situation here.<br>
<br>
This could be resolved - it seems morally correct to give an
attribution to OS, which is the only substantive condition of the
licence. It seems like a classic case of standing on principles and
that is rarely a good thing. For sure, every country or even county
could end up with this, but for a small amount of licensing text -
not a real burden surely? The typical British casual British user is
not going to understand why OSM are unable to be pragmatic to the
advantage of British users.<br>
<br>
Spenny<br>
</body>
</html>