[OSM-talk] Google blog post: "The meaning of open"
Roy Wallace
waldo000000 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 25 21:14:29 GMT 2009
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 7:42 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/23 Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com>:
>> Interestingly, there is NO mention of mapping data. Amazing. How can
>> they continue to omit this from the discussion?
>
> Actually thereg did a good run down on this:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/23/google_on_open/
>
> It's not just data they aren't open about...
Interesting article. From it: "[H]is description of what should be
open avoids all those areas where Google is preternaturally closed. In
some cases, he rationalizes the omissions. In others, he seems
completely oblivious to what's been left out." ... "Like any other
money-driven outfit, Google is open when open suits its needs. And
it's closed when closed suits."
Still no mention of mapping data, though. Does being closed in that
sense really suit Google's needs? I'm not so sure.
More information about the talk
mailing list