[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

[John Smith]

On 20 August 2010 06:05, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it?

The same questions have been asked about OSM-F, with more or less the
same answers...

> In their original email. I wasn't quite sure of the context, thus I wrote "possibly".

I don't recall seeing it, but it would seem strange position to take
since OSM data is used commercially by themselves...

>>> 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,
>
> I don't think they're being unreasonable about the future, we all have points to make about the process, the CT's etc. It's holding the past data hostage I don't personally feel is very cool.

I don't think the CTs holding us hostage to possible but others keep
telling me are unlikely futures is reasonable...