[OSM-talk] Survey: How to pay the OSM bill

Nick Black nickblack1 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 11 18:07:01 BST 2007


On 7/11/07, Robert (Jamie) Munro <rjmunro at arjam.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Christoph Eckert wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > while OSM is a volunteer project, it is obvious that it needs money to
> > keep the needed infrastructure (hardware, bandwidth, ...) up and
> > running. Currently there's some discussion about the newly introduced
> > ads on our beloved map. Some agree, some disagree with ads on the map.
> >
> > All who disagree on advertising on the map have to elaborate
> > alternatives. IMO there should be a polpular vote whether we agree on
> > maps or even not. If someone votes against the ads, he/she also needs
> > to vote for fundraising alternatives.
>
> There's nothing wrong with some ads on the home page (or other pages) a
> long as they are clearly outside the main map, like the old Google Ads.
> The only problem with the old ads AFAIK was relevancy. If we make a
> series of search engine food pages as someone suggested, so that we have
> one page per place with the name of the place and a map of the place in
> the centre of the page, hopefully the Google ads may be relevant to the
> places themselves.
>
> While these ads may well make enough money to pay for hosting fees or
> the occasional new server, they are unlikely to make a real income for
> the foundation - e.g. enough for the foundation to employ developers and
>  admin staff.
>
> The main way I can see the foundation making enough money to employ
> people would be to sell the data for commercial use, but still allow it
> to be used for non-commercial use for free. For an example of how this
> can work, see MusicBrainz - who we are much closer to in mission than we
> are to Wikipedia. They've just announced that the BBC have signed a
> license to use their information, the fee of which will allow "paid
> people on staff". Note it says "people" not "a person" (which they
> already have).
>
> For the foundation to do this, it needs to unambiguously own the data,
> which means a change in terms and conditions, and it may be painful, but
> I think it is absolutely necessary, even if we don't go down the selling
> data, and the sooner it happens the less painful it will be. Hopefully
> we can discuss this at State of the Map
>
> Another possibility is if the foundation had a membership fee of, say
> £5/month, and 1000 members, (just like the Open Rights Group), then it
> would be close to employing someone full time.

The Foundation already has a memebership fee of £25 or a letter to
explain why you can't afford £25.  Problem is that not many people
want to join the foundation.

>
> Robert (Jamie) Munro
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGlNtQz+aYVHdncI0RAs5yAKC7pQogSQnzKl0DnHNxOdZbTX7UCACfZEtX
> yG4GGddwEvNTfRmv1qpfnRQ=
> =ZIr7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>


-- 
Nick Black
--------------------------------
http://www.blacksworld.net




More information about the talk mailing list