[OSM-talk] Google blog post: "The meaning of open"

[edodd at billiau.net]

> 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.
>

Then I assume that they see a means of making money out of the mapping.