Hi, SteveC wrote:
It's holding the past data hostage I don't personally feel is very cool.
Agree that it isn't cool but then again everyone is doing it - i mean how often have read "I am against the license, if you go ahead then prepare to delete <X>". Makes me want to go there and throw the data out right now & replace it with my own ;) - sadly not on the cards for Australia.
I think we're all at fault here because when NearMap images became availalbe for tracing, the whole license change process was already in motion and the imports page on the Wiki already had the warning about checking compatibility. It should have been *us* who asked NearMap at the time "and what about future license changes?" and if their response had been "we'll investigate whatever license you want to move to and then tell you if you can keep the data that you traced" (and I'm sure it would habe been that), we should just have said "thanks but no thanks".
Instead we all went drooling "ooooohh look you can map individual towels on the beach".
I think this should be lesson for using any kind of external source in the future. It is unfair to blame NearMap - they can hardly be criticised for giving us something under a certain license and then sticking to it.
Do we have an idea how much data we're talking about in the particular case of Nearmap? Surely the Australian community has put proper Nearmap source tags on changesets or objects; has anyone counted them yet?
Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
