Perhaps TeleNav or Bing's lawyers are brave enough to say ODbL is not a problem, or they guess that those entities could absorb the lawsuit. They are the only lawyers who take this stance, and they haven't tested it - neither company provides permanent OSM-derived geocoding.
Everywhere else, cautious lawyers and lawyers are the same thing. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > I love Gary - I think it’s great that OSM is getting to the point that > people will write 100 page critiques of it. We must be doing something > right. :-) > > I actually tried on the single point of contact issue, I think it’d be a > great idea for OSM to have a 1-800 (or similar) number. Even manned by > volunteers. But at the time, "companies are evil" and all that so it didn’t > go anywhere. > > ODbL critique is the usual thing; people want to take OSM and merge it > with other people’s datasets without giving back, perhaps for good reasons. > That’s not an ambiguity, it’s the whole point. There are edge cases and > complexities like geocoding, but as far as I can see some lawyers can work > with it, cautious lawyers tend to make it a big issue. It’s a shame some > organizations are trapped by cautious advice like that - I’ve worked in > organizations with more positive advice around OSM and it means you can go > a lot further. > > Best > > Steve > > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Nicholas G Lawrence < > nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au> wrote: > > > http://geohipster.com/2015/04/27/gary-gale-dear-osm-its-time-to-get-your-finger-out/ > > Anyone read this blog piece by Gary Gale? > Is it worth commenting on? > > *“**To my mind there’s two barriers to greater and more widespread > adoption, both of which can be overcome if there’s sufficient will to > overcome them within the OSM community as a whole. These barriers are, in > no particular order … licensing, and OSM not being seen as (more) conducive > to working with business.”* > > 1) Gary criticises OSM for not having a single point of contact for > business to liaise with. > > Exactly why this is necessary is a mystery to me. If business wants to > make use of OSM data, they can download the planet file just like anyone > else. If business wants to contribute data, or donate equipment or sponsor > events, those things are also possible. > > 2) Gary criticises the ODbL for ambiguities in the share-alike clause. > > Maybe this needs clarification, but personally I think the share-alike > clause is a good thing. > > Fundamentally though, Gary seems to be under the impression that OSM has a > driving need to “compete” with other providers of geospatial data, and that > if OSM hasn’t “won the race” then it is failing somehow. Which I think > reveals a vast ignorance of the motivations of the majority of OSM > volunteers. > > Anyway, I wondered if anyone else had seen the post. > > Cheers, > Nick > > *********************************************************************** > WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally > privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by > copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was > intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one > is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print > or copy this email without appropriate authority. > > If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, > please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of > this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer > system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and > any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not > waived or destroyed by that mistake. > > It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain > and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by > third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with > your computer system). > > Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the > opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, > or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. > *********************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk