On 12/07/2011 1:53 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
Am 11.07.2011 14:46, schrieb Brendan Morley:
On 11/07/2011 8:08 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
It's really up to -them- to remedy the mistakes -they- made (ABS2006
import and similar).
I'm sad to think you characterise ABS2006 as a "mistake".
The import was made at a point in time when it was clear that the
license change process was going to
start in earnest. At least a couple of warning bells should have gone
off and red lights start flashing.
I'll have to get back in my time machine to be sure, but I don't think
that was clear to me at the time. I think there was plenty of
enthusiasm for the fact that AusGov had finally opened something up of
use to the OSM community. If the change process was in the
consciousness, I think there may have still have been hope that people
could vote "no".
But I'm not complaining about that, mistakes happen and it is done
deed now. BUT as you point out
the Australian government has become more flexible about licensing and
there is a fair chance that
either the data could be relicensed under CC-by (which might be
compatible with the ODbL) or that
special permission could be obtained to keep the material in the
database.
I think re-importing might be a better outcome. For example, Queensland
now has official suburb boundaries up under CC By - better resolution
than the ABS version anyway.
But instead of trying to help the Australian community resolve this
issue, you and others, keep on
peddling their respective forks-of-the-day,
The situation is irreconcilable. In my case, if I realised then what I
know now, OSM was the wrong project for me to choose in the first
place. That's because I believe Share Alike doesn't actually add
anything in a practical sense, it actually gets in the way of better
community mapping. Then again I also believe that innovation should
happen at the speed of capital entrepreneurship, not just the
developers' own itches.
In the Australian market, OSM is caught between a rock and a hard place:
* Whenever the share-alike aspect is not guaranteed forever, NearMap
will refuse to be a derivation/adaptation source. (SA is an
essential part of their business model - believe me, I tried to
change their mind on that.)
* Whenever the share-alike aspect is declared, no government will
participate in the crowd-to-agency part of geodata roundtripping.
Contracts are now being let that explicitly require the captured
geodata to be releasable under CC By. OSM contributions by
definition are simply not in the running.
which flatly is simply SPAM (in your case well disguised).
Fair call. Though I'm only doing this in response to Steve Coast's
recent blog post http://opengeodata.org/hitting-reset-on-talk-au
Brendan
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
