[OSM-talk] GeoHipster comment on OSM

[Tom MacWright]

Perhaps TeleNav or Bing's lawyers are brave enough to say ODbL is not a
problem, or they guess that those entities could absorb the lawsuit. They
are the only lawyers who take this stance, and they haven't tested it -
neither company provides permanent OSM-derived geocoding.

Everywhere else, cautious lawyers and lawyers are the same thing.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

> I love Gary - I think it’s great that OSM is getting to the point that
> people will write 100 page critiques of it. We must be doing something
> right. :-)
>
> I actually tried on the single point of contact issue, I think it’d be a
> great idea for OSM to have a 1-800 (or similar) number. Even manned by
> volunteers. But at the time, "companies are evil" and all that so it didn’t
> go anywhere.
>
> ODbL critique is the usual thing; people want to take OSM and merge it
> with other people’s datasets without giving back, perhaps for good reasons.
> That’s not an ambiguity, it’s the whole point. There are edge cases and
> complexities like geocoding, but as far as I can see some lawyers can work
> with it, cautious lawyers tend to make it a big issue. It’s a shame some
> organizations are trapped by cautious advice like that - I’ve worked in
> organizations with more positive advice around OSM and it means you can go
> a lot further.
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Nicholas G Lawrence <
> nicholas.g.lawrence at tmr.qld.gov.au> wrote:
>
>
> http://geohipster.com/2015/04/27/gary-gale-dear-osm-its-time-to-get-your-finger-out/
>
> Anyone read this blog piece by Gary Gale?
> Is it worth commenting on?
>
> *“**To my mind there’s two barriers to greater and more widespread
> adoption, both of which can be overcome if there’s sufficient will to
> overcome them within the OSM community as a whole. These barriers are, in
> no particular order … licensing, and OSM not being seen as (more) conducive
> to working with business.”*
>
> 1) Gary criticises OSM for not having a single point of contact for
> business to liaise with.
>
> Exactly why this is necessary is a mystery to me. If business wants to
> make use of OSM data, they can download the planet file just like anyone
> else. If business wants to contribute data, or donate equipment or sponsor
> events, those things are also possible.
>
> 2) Gary criticises the ODbL for ambiguities in the share-alike clause.
>
> Maybe this needs clarification, but personally I think the share-alike
> clause is a good thing.
>
> Fundamentally though, Gary seems to be under the impression that OSM has a
> driving need to “compete” with other providers of geospatial data, and that
> if OSM hasn’t “won the race” then it is failing somehow. Which I think
> reveals a vast ignorance of the motivations of the majority of OSM
> volunteers.
>
> Anyway, I wondered if anyone else had seen the post.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick
>
> ***********************************************************************
> WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally
> privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
> copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was
> intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one
> is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print
> or copy this email without appropriate authority.
>
> If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
> please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
> this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
> system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and
> any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not
> waived or destroyed by that mistake.
>
> It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain
> and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by
> third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
> your computer system).
>
> Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
> opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads,
> or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
> ***********************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150501/450412dc/attachment.html>