I really disagree with this too. Is the Government subsidising commercial operations when councils collect their rubbish?
To think of this in terms of commercialism vs non-commercialism is to miss the point. Postcode data is a national asset -- a part of our digital infrastructure -- and allowing its use to be made subject to onerous terms by what is essentially a private body is not good enough. It doesn't really matter what the controls are. *That is is so controlled* is the bad thing. Getting Government to pay for it is merely a practical way of getting it into the public domain. That's the principled argument. The pragmatic argument is that it's better economics for postcode data to be free to all. More people will innovate, more people will create things, more value will be generated. If you make it free for non-commercial use only you lose a large portion of that value. It almost defeats the point (but not quite). The only reason we're advocating a special licence for not-for-profits is that *right now* it's the thing that we can most plausibly accomplish that will do some good. If we waltz into the Royal Mail and ask them to make postcode data free, for all, forever, and gut the multi-million pound postcode reselling industry in the process, we'll be laughed out of the room. It's the right thing to do, but totally impractical. Harry On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 12:07 +0100, paul perrin wrote: > I would support it being free for non-commercial use - but oppose > taxpayers being forced to subsidise commercial operations - commercial > operations need to please their customers or go bust they should not > twist taxpayers arms to subsidise them. > > > As it happens... I don't think postcode/log-lat is covered by database > IP anyway - Assembling the database requires no particular effort, it > is a simple by-product of the royal mails core operations (delivering > mail) - and there cannot be anything less complex than a simple lookup > table. > > > Paul /)/+) > > > 2009/10/12 Jonathan Hogg <[email protected]> > On 11 Oct 2009, at 13:44, Owen Blacker wrote: > > > With respect, I think that's an overwhelmingly foolish > decision. > > > > Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. If we don't > make a > > start here, we won't ever achieve the fully free postcodes > that > > everyone here wants. > > > I've heard this "perfect vs good enough" line a couple of > times now > and I don't buy it. > > If you are lobbying Royal Mail, then the best you can hope for > is a > free, or low-cost, non-profit license as it probably won't > cost them > much, is an easy PR win and takes the heat off any discussion > of the > thorny problem of what right they have as a pseudo-commercial > corporation to sell a database built using public funds. > > However, this is a discussion centred around a No 10 petition. > If you > are lobbying ministers then you are lobbying for the wrong > thing. This > isn't a story that makes much sense to me. The Royal Mail > doesn't care > about the benefits to self-employed people, small businesses > and the > wider economy, but MPs *can* be convinced of these things. All > these > people, who some here seem to think of as freeloaders on the > public > purse, are also known as constituents and tax-payers. > > I'm not asking for the perfect, I'm asking for the sensible. > If you > want free postcodes then this drains valuable momentum from > the > campaign with something that MPs and Royal Mail will see as > addressing > the immediate problem and therefore absolves them of the > responsibility to consider the bigger issue - a particular > waste at a > time when we can capture some media attention and have already > gotten > at least one vocal MP interested in the issue. It also > entrenches the > view that commercial use is somehow "bad" or "different" and, > most > disappointingly to me, makes it appear that we, as a > community, agree > with this view. > > If all you really want is for MySociety and other non-profit > web- > mashups to be able to use the database without having to pay, > then go > ahead, but I won't support it. > > > Yes, this might give RM a vaguely-easy PR win; it's up to us > to make > > sure that the media spin it as "just a start". > > > I don't think the media are going to care less about the "just > a > start" story: it will be lost in the "won't somebody think of > the > children" charity white-noise. > > > I'd beseech you to change your mind and sign this petition. > Divide > > and conquer is even more effective when we do it to > ourselves. > > > "Divide and conquer" only makes sense here if you believe we > were > initially united in our view and that somehow this is a > conspiracy by > the Royal Mail, otherwise it's just patronising nonsense. If > you have > a solid argument as to how a non-profit license is a step > towards free > postcodes rather than a step backwards, I'd love to hear it. > > I'm disappointed that discourse on this subject is reducing to > the > level of badgering people who disagree. > > > Jonathan > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
