2009/10/12 Jonathan Hogg <[email protected]> > On 12 Oct 2009, at 13:23, Harry Metcalfe wrote: > > > 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). > > I emphatically agree with you here. >
This doesn't add up - free for 'non-commercial' use means you can innovate all you like with the free data, but if you commercialise your work then you need to charge a price that covers the cost of your materials. For the immorality of giving things away that could be charged for check out the Stack Overflow blog regarding Craigs List http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=60017737&id=279215411 > > > 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. > > I agree that if you're negotiating with Royal Mail, then the special > license is probably the best that can be achieved, but if you're > lobbying politicians why start so low? It's the wrong argument: > instead of arguing about innovation and GDP, you're arguing about non- > profits not being able to afford the database. I think the latter is > also a weaker political argument. > > The current situation is that everybody pays or gets sued by the Royal > Mail. Clearly this is a poor situation and we both agree that nobody > pays is the right thing. However, if we explicitly lobby for a "some > pay, some don't pay" then *we create* the very thing we despise: we > stifle wider innovation for the benefit of a few non-profits. > > Once you've created the monster, and let people believe it is better, > I fear you're going to have a much harder time dismantling it. > > Here's a quote from the Guardian coverage of the issue: > > > The Guardian's Free Our Data campaign, which has the aim of making > > non-personal data collected by government-owned bodies available for > > free without copyright, has repeatedly pointed out that the postcode > > database is created in effect for free by local government > > authorities and was initially created with public money. Charging > > for it now produces a comparatively small amount of revenue and > > profit, while holding back the development of huge numbers of web > > services such as Job Centre Pro Plus. Large companies such as Yahoo > > and Google can afford to pay the postcode database licence, but that > > shuts out smaller would-be British startups. > > > and from Tom Watson MP: > > > I take the position that the postcode file and the data set of > > physical coordinates that go with it are a national asset that > > should be freely available to any UK citizen. > > Yay! Let's squander all this goodwill and publicity by campaigning for > something rubbish. > > 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
