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

[SteveC]

On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:01 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>> John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point.
> 
> The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map
> data being share alike.
> 
>> 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license?
> 
> I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs,
> specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL
> is.

Do you think nearmap are being reasonable?

I don't think they are.

There are a variety of downsides with working with open communities - one of them is that they are flexible and change over time with many different opinions. A bunch of people here wanted that change in section 3 (do you agree that was reasonable?). I don't think we can change OSM sufficiently to cater to nearmaps terms of interaction if they are that static - or the hundreds of other companies who will then have their own demands and terms of interaction.

Someone, somewhere (namely the LWG) has to make a balance between those who want nearmap and those who want those CT changes. I think they should probably go with the new CTs sadly rather than go with nearmap. It's not a nice choice but I don't see any alternatives, do you?

Steve

stevecoast.com