> And Tokyo Cabinet is Free Software licenced under the LGPL. Which allows > """commercial""" use. If it was under the kind of proprietary licence a > revenue-chasing PDC would have to use, gratis alternatives would > suddenly become more appealing. That's fine in a free market for > software, but the ramifications are quite different in a closed market > for state data.
*Kyoto* Cabinet (the successor to Tokyo Cabinet) has a commercial license for when you don't want to release your source code: http://fallabs.com/license/ The idea I was borrowing is that of a dual license. For instance conveyancing lawyers could be asked to pay a subscription for access to Land Registry data, while members of the public and public interest groups can use a free license for non-commercial use. A body, a bit like the Performing Rights Society or even the Solicitors Regulation Authority could ensure payments are made by the solicitors. The current fee model adopted by the Land Registry is fairly horrendous: http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/Apps/fees/default.asp I'm sure it could be simplified by setting yearly subscription fees determined by the user's industry (conveyancing, planning applications, land disputes,...) The main point I was trying to make is that rather than opposing the proposed changes, it might be better to get in early with some new ideas for doing things with ideas from open source software and its licensing model. And, yes mailing lists and blogs are useful, but an organised and transparent lobbying group can be very effective. See the Hacked Off campaign for a recent example: http://hackinginquiry.org/ Cheers, Donny. _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
