[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSMContributor Terms
David Groom
reviews at pacific-rim.net
Fri Aug 20 01:25:41 BST 2010
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SteveC" <steve at asklater.com>
> To: "Peteris Krisjanis" <pecisk at gmail.com>; "Licensing and other legal
> discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>; "Ben Last"
> <ben.last at nearmap.com>
> Cc: "Brad Neuhauser" <brad.neuhauser at gmail.com>; "Pierre-Alain Dorange"
> <pdorange at mac.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and
> OSMContributor Terms
>
>
>> Moving to legal-talk
>>
>> Ben in future please post here.
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>>> It is not only about NearMap, we have tens of goverment sources which
>>> requires attribution.
>>>
>>> It *is* talk list issue. It is about future of the project.
>>
>> Not yet it isn't.
>>
>> NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data
>> hostage in this way. We all have our different opinions on the license,
This is just silly. In what way are NearMap attempting to "hold a lot of
data hostage". They have allowed the OSM community to trace from their
imagery under the licence terms which OSM had in force. OSM want to change
the licence, and NearMap have said the new CT's are not acceptable to them.
That's not NearMap's fault. Its the fault of the way the CT's are drafted.
NearMap haven't changed their stance in any way
>> but the point is that we need to do something going forward which will be
>> on average better for everyone. It won't be perfect. Therefore we have to
>> make compromises.
>>
>> NearMap have some valid things they pointed out might make the CT's
>> better. The LWG has had approximately 12 hours (from memory) to look at
>> them, and for all we know might think they're awesome and change. Maybe
>> not. We don't know.
>>
>> That's not the same thing as "oh my god we should do whatever NearMap
>> want us to do".
No one has suggested "we should do whatever NearMap want us to do " in fact
they were very clear they said "not our place as a company to try and direct
or influence the direction of OSM".
>>
>> Therefore it's a discussion about the points in the CT's, which may or
>> may not be changed. Not just "do whatever NearMap says".
See my point above. How often you repeat "do whatever NearMap says" wont
make any difference to the fact that they haven't said that, and only makes
SteveC seem paranoid / ridiculous.
>>
>> I think a much better position from NearMap would be to compromise on the
>> data already in. Say, yes the data already derived can be used under the
So NearMap should compromise so that in order use of their data is compliant
with OSM's badly written CT's? Surely a better position would be either to
consider re-writing the CT's, or simply accept some loss of data.
>> CT's. Then work with the LWG to fix the issues they see. You can't really
>> put "it's not our place as a company to try and direct or influence the
>> direction of OSM." at the end of an email which is all about trying to
>> direct and influence the directions of the LWG and OSM and expect to be
>> taken seriously. I'd be more honest and say, yes, we do want to change
>> the
Steve if you want to betaken seriously then I suggest you don't misrepresent
the views of others.
>> direction so that it suits our business better. Because that's the
>> reality as I see it. And it's not really that bad.
>>
>> I think the bigger issues is NearMap mistaking the intention and the word
I think the bigger issue is that the "intention" of the licence/ CT's does
not match the "word" of the licence. Unfortunately when reading and agree
the CT's, it's the words we will be agreeing to.
>> 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.
If its all so open to interpretation they don't be surprised if many people
find they cant agree to it.
>>
>> 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). We need to
>> move forward in the spirit of compromise on to something which every
>> rational person I know thinks is the best step forward - the ODbL.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
I look forward to all these new imagery providers coming forward :)
On a more general, and much more serious, note I think the tone of your post
and the comments you have made to be totally inappropriate for the current
Chairman of OSMF. I cant see that it will in any way encourage NearMap to
work with OSM in the future, nor will it have any positive effect on all the
other current / potential data providers.
Lastly as a member of OSMF can I apologise to NearMap for any offence caused
by our Chairman's comments.
Regards
David
>> Steve
>>
>> stevecoast.com
>>
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list