2009/10/12 Harry Metcalfe <[email protected]> > 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. >
Thing is we're not asking RM - we're asking the govt as owners of RM to stop cannibalising their own tax base. Perhaps there is a graduated 'middle way' - to 'wean' RM and resellers off the data on a timescale - starting with free data for NFPs. Rich > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
