Andy Allan wrote: > I take your point on the "least worst" thing, but Page 11 of the > consultation shows, for both Option 2 and Option 3 (Option 1 being > "as-is") that the funding would increase to compensate. > "Significant funding from government would be required." > "Government would provide funding for the maintenance and delivery of > these datasets." > "This option would require substantial changes to the existing sources > of revenue, at the heart of which is a shift towards government paying > more." I interpreted this as scare mongering on behalf of he OS, & open to argument.
They're making the assumption that the first port of call for any "extra" revenue/support would automatically be the Government. This is not necessarily the truth. "Significant funding from government would be required." As they've already been payed the funding. I see this data release, in what ever form it happens, as a form of debt repayment to the people. On page 9, first bullet point, the government initiative is headed "Make Public Data Public". I don't see why the OS can expect to make a commercial enterprise out of something hey don't own. The profit it's now making should effectively be on our behalf. --- There is an example of free commercial data - OoC Books. The Wordsworth Classic series prints & sells them for a couple of quid, yet there is still a market for them still being sold for in Waterstones for 3/4 times that amount. The OS needs to get into the full free market economy without saying it is, but still hiding behind the cloak of a monopoly Dave F. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
