On 7 April 2011 15:58, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 April 2011 12:57, David Murn <da...@incanberra.com.au> wrote: > >> If the Australian issue is so important, as others have suggested why >> isnt OSMF seeking to make a rapid agreement with NearMap as was done >> with Bing? > > This really needs to be done. > > Is wonder if this is just due to a shortage of time that the LWG > hasn't included this as yet? > > It would be nice to think that seeing this issue primary affects > Australians, that we could take the lead in doing this. However, I > don't know how many on the OSM-AU list are ready to help in this kind > of endevour?
Ignoring Nearmap's strong preference of SA for a second, the issue of attribution effects a lot more than just Australians and so far none of the CTs published addresses this sufficiently. Certain people involved in shaping the CT are strongly in favour of PD, which means a very weak or non-existent SA and Attribution clauses now exist. Attempts have been made to readdress this within the CTs but those same PD proponents have blocked or watered down things to the point that it makes things significantly worst for everyone, not better. > On the Nearmap side, there is clearly in my opinion a business benefit > to Nearmap of having the OSM data closely aligned to the Nearmap > images. It gives them an accurate, free and up-to-date streetmap > layer, and for the foreseeable future attribution within the OSM data. > And lets face it, the value in Nearmap's business proposition is > accuracy and currency. If OSM went off the rails (and scrapped ODbL) > in a way Nearmap didn't like, withdrawing OSM support from that moment > onwards would see the data quickly lose currency. Considering the amount of people in favour of strong attribution and share a like requirements I highly doubt that Nearmap will be at a loss of up to date data, and efforts to vectorise Bing imagery automatically and Nearmap's possible in house coders will probably make this further of a non-issue for Nearmap. > On the OSM side, I recognise several of the top contributors list as > being nearmap mappers, and I'd hazard a guess that we are looking at > possibly over 20% of the Australian data possibly impacted by this, so > working this through has large benefits to OSM. At the most extreme > end it could make the difference whether a viable OSM community > continues in Australia under the OSM banner. There is a strong case > if all else fails to allow at least the current nearmap data to be > imported under a very ephemeral set of contributor terms just for this > purpose, allowing the nearmap derived data to survive as long as the > the attribution model persists. After all Nearmap are only objecting > to a possibility of a future licence change, not the ODbL itself - and > that may be many years distant. Jeopardising OSM in Australia at this > juncture doesn't seem worth it when by the time we come to consider > the next licence change the world of aerial image will likely have > evolved dramatically. IMHO OSM-F is at the point where the OSM community won't just fork, but will completely splinter if the community views of mappers is ignored like it seems to be presently. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
