[OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

Brendan Morley morb.gis at beagle.com.au
Mon Jul 11 22:54:21 BST 2011


On 12/07/2011 1:53 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
> Am 11.07.2011 14:46, schrieb Brendan Morley:
>> On 11/07/2011 8:08 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
>>> It's really up to -them- to remedy the mistakes -they- made (ABS2006 
>>> import and similar).
>>
>> I'm sad to think you characterise ABS2006 as a "mistake".
> The import was made at a point in time when it was clear that the 
> license change process was going to
> start in earnest. At least a couple of warning bells should have gone 
> off and red lights start flashing.
I'll have to get back in my time machine to be sure, but I don't think 
that was clear to me at the time.  I think there was plenty of 
enthusiasm for the fact that AusGov had finally opened something up of 
use to the OSM community.  If the change process was in the 
consciousness, I think there may have still have been hope that people 
could vote "no".

> But I'm not complaining about that, mistakes happen and it is done 
> deed now. BUT as you point out
> the Australian government has become more flexible about licensing and 
> there is a fair chance that
> either the data could be relicensed under CC-by (which might be 
> compatible with the ODbL) or that
> special permission could be obtained to keep the material in the 
> database.
I think re-importing might be a better outcome.  For example, Queensland 
now has official suburb boundaries up under CC By - better resolution 
than the ABS version anyway.

> But instead of trying to help the Australian community resolve this 
> issue, you and others, keep on
> peddling their respective forks-of-the-day, 
The situation is irreconcilable.  In my case, if I realised then what I 
know now, OSM was the wrong project for me to choose in the first 
place.  That's because I believe Share Alike doesn't actually add 
anything in a practical sense, it actually gets in the way of better 
community mapping.  Then again I also believe that innovation should 
happen at the speed of capital entrepreneurship, not just the 
developers' own itches.

In the Australian market, OSM is caught between a rock and a hard place:

    * Whenever the share-alike aspect is not guaranteed forever, NearMap
      will refuse to be a derivation/adaptation source.  (SA is an
      essential part of their business model - believe me, I tried to
      change their mind on that.)
    * Whenever the share-alike aspect is declared, no government will
      participate in the crowd-to-agency part of geodata roundtripping. 
      Contracts are now being let that explicitly require the captured
      geodata to be releasable under CC By.  OSM contributions by
      definition are simply not in the running.


> which flatly is simply SPAM (in your case well disguised).
Fair call.  Though I'm only doing this in response to Steve Coast's 
recent blog post http://opengeodata.org/hitting-reset-on-talk-au


Brendan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110712/a1411013/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list