[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Steve Coast steve at asklater.com
Thu Jul 7 15:55:30 BST 2011



On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000000 at gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com 
> <mailto:steve at asklater.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the
>     community, Australia being a good example ...
>
>
> Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of "Australia" to filter 
> bullshit.
>
> I just want to:
> 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never 
> be deleted.

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'.

> 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20110707/7373a0a9/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list