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

[John Smith]

On 19 July 2010 04:08, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> Do you think nearmap are being reasonable?
>
> I don't think they are.

Why are we changing to another share alike license if this isn't
reasonable? I fail to see the logic here.

> 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.

As I said before, anyone who has used Nearmap imagery will not legally
be able to agree to the current CT because it would breach their
contract with Nearmap, on the other hand is it reasonable of OSM to
force people into an open ended agreement about what an open and free
license might be 10 years from now?

> 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?

This is the unfortunate conclusion that seems to be occurring, so
basically there will be a fork and as unfortunate as it will be the
new CT is too unreasonable to my pragmatic goals of build an open map
of Australia, as I said before it would be about the same as removing
the Tiger data and any data derived from it from the US, where would
the US end up?