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

[SteveC]

This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws.

Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood?

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jul 7, 2011, at 19:10, James Andrewartha <trs80 at student.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

> On 7 July 2011 22:55, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>> 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> 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'.
> 
> As  I said in an email to you, I disagree with the concept of a
> database right, or using contract law to emulate it, which has no
> precedent in Australia. Also, I dislike contributor agreements in free
> software projects, and the CTs are a similar concept. They restrict
> the use of data from governments and other third parties. Now, there
> is an argument over whether that data should be kept separate as
> layers, but I haven't seen that discussed at all. Finally, as I read
> it the Nearmap grant doesn't let me relicense my existing CC-BY-SA
> contributions as ODbL as I hadn't signed the CT when I made them.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Disclosure: I am a shareholder; I bought shares partly because they
> used OSM for their maps.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> However, due to the CT governments have to contribute their data
> directly rather than letting even more agile citizens do it for them.
> 
> James Andrewartha
>