[talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Andrew Laughton]

On 31 October 2011 20:12, Chris Barham <cbarham at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000000 at gmail.com
> <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than
> > "transcribing" parts of the emails (?!).
>
> Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be less than
> wise? - I have, and will share my thoughts:
> a number of people on this list are both vocal and vitriolic regarding
> OSMF.
>

And with very good reason, you must be new here.



> Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who
> do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and
> damage the project.
> Scenario A:  A person could cut and paste the detail along with a
> whiny cover letter to data.gov.au saying "no fair, me want too" -
> piggy backing on the work done by licence group for the benefit of
> OSM, all the while decrying anything OSMF does.
>

Can anybody give any good reasons why OSMF, or any other group or
organization should be given preferential treatment ?
Possibly you would prefer if someone like Bing bought exclusive rights to
this data, and no-one else could use it.

The whole point of the OSM license change was to allow other people to
piggy back on their work, to take it without attributing any
acknowledgement to the original source.
While in some ways this is different, it seems very hypocritical to want to
deny others the same rights, or to build on work that you have already done.
Possibly you need to read the new OSM license again to try to understand
the implications.




> Scenario B:  Someone could nitpick over detail and then jeopardise the
> agreement by complaining vociferously to anyone who will listen about
> how it's illegal because a full stop is misplaced; maybe complaining
> to individual data owners e.g.: "Look at this, data.gov.au just
> re-licenced your data"
>

Option 1
Crowd-source the fault finding, get everything right before anything is
built on it.

Option 2
Allow a potential time bomb into the project, in a year or two, some other
mapping company or business might decide that OSM is a threat to them, and
use these flaws to sink OSM.
How much money does OSM have to defend itself ?,  even just the threat
should work if the original assumption is wrong in law.

It would appear you prefer Option 2.




>
> I'm not suggesting it will happen, but it could, especially given the
> historical (and breathtakingly non-sensical), level of animosity
> towards OSMF and it's work.
>
> Unless I misunderstand it, the licence group volunteer to sort this
> stuff out,  project users can assume they act in good faith and
> applaud their successes.  So why aren't we believing that this is what
> they have done, under the oversight of the OSMF (who are there to
> oversee)?
>
> Chris
>


Sounds good to me.  If OSM want to shoot themselves in the foot, what right
do mappers have to disagree ?

But then on the other hand, possibly the comments are not exclusivly for
OSM, possibly they are being made to stop other projects from falling into
the same trap.

Andrew.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20111031/23cbc800/attachment.html>