Landon, I could really care less with who Google is running over. It is their business who they work with and who they don't.
You point that this was a missed opportunity for Google is what really disappoints me. Here was a great opportunity to get better maps for all, but rather than open up the process, they close it up behind their walls. Such a shame considering everything was there to make this a great collaborative effort. -- James Fee GISP RSP Architects 502 South Collge Avenue, Suite 203, Tempe, AZ 85281 480-889-2095 (w) 602-819-2142 (m) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Landon Blake Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 1:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Geowanking] MapMaker I agree. It's one thing for Google to run a pavement roller over another company. It's another to run a pavement roller over an outfit like OSM. Google didn't gain any points in my book for that. Had they made an effort to support or cooperate with OSM they would have attained near-hero status with me. I still think it was a missed opportunity for Google. Landon -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of SteveC Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 1:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Geowanking] MapMaker On 30 Jun 2008, at 14:34, P Kishor wrote: > Why is this creating such a storm in the proverbial teacup? From the > MapMaker TOS -- > "By submitting User Submissions to the Service, you give Google a > perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive > license to " > > See the non-exclusive part. You give Google a license, but you retain > your copyright to do whatever you want to. You can turn around and > give it OSM as well, or sell it Yahoo or Microsoft or whoever your > preferred map making overlords are. What's the big deal? Yeah what's the big deal? So... where can I download all my data and load it in to OSM then? And, er, does this also give me rights to derive for non-exclusive use also? The non-exclusive part may be just for those jurisdictions which treat copyright as a moral right and thus it has to be non-exclusive. But I'm sure if you mail them they'll reply with an open an honest answer. > Unless I am missing something, I see absolutely no problem. In any You're missing Google trampling on an open community again after selling the dream of doing no evil. I mean, personally I've been expecting it for a while and I have no illusions of the motivation for this stuff, but a lot of people have a hope of higher purpose that, y'know, they'd at least bother talking to us first. But that's not their modus operandi. Best Steve _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
