[OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 18 18:46:05 BST 2010


On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example.

Nearmap isn't dictating any terms, other than you can only use their
data under a share alike license so no need to lump them in with
Google. However I have a fairly good idea how much information has
been added in regional areas that wouldn't exist otherwise.

> I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens.

You go on and on about how if 50% disappear wait a short time and
it'll magically appear within a short period of time, I call BS, if
the tiger data was dumped from OSM how long exactly would it take to
regather it? How demoralising would it be on the people that fixed up
the tiger data? Combined with people that don't respond or don't agree
it would set the Aussie community back to the stone age effectively,
and it will actively turn away new contributors because they won't
want the same thing to happen to their efforts.




More information about the talk mailing list