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

[John Smith]

On 8 July 2011 00:55, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> 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'.

He said he wanted to keep using Nearmap, Nearmap have said you can't...

What clarification did you get from OS? I've not see anything definite posted...

> 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

What does free mean?
What does open mean?

> 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.

What specifically does CC need to change in their current licenses to
be more useful?
It's my understanding that ODBL doesn't require produced work be
attributed which makes all CC licenses (except CC0) incompatible as
you would be breaking the chain of attribution.

> 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.

The problem isn't just the new license or the CTs for that matter,
it's how this were carried out, how our concerns were dismissed out of
hand.

> 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.

Nearmap was merely a sign of bigger issues and problems that the LWG
or anyone else pushing for change didn't deal with properly and still
haven't otherwise you wouldn't be trying to claim to be the victim
here.

> 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

Some doubt your claims since Bing hasn't official published anything
on one of their websites, others are worried the use of Bing imagery
will cause grief for OSM-F later.

> 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 things are great as long as you get your way?

> 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.

They didn't decide to change things, you did so at least man up and
take responsibility for your actions instead of trying to blame
others.