On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 21:58 +0000, geni wrote: > 2010/1/30 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>: > > On 30 January 2010 20:29, Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote: > > > >> What do you think would be the best approach to take here? A single > >> official comment from Wikimedia UK? Persuading lots of Wikimedians to > >> emphatically say "yes"? Both of these? It isn't clear to me whether > >> they want detailed, logical responses or large numbers of responses > >> saying the same thing, although I haven't read through the whole > >> document yet... > > > > > > Both, possibly. > > > > Considering the PM Petition response was basically "fuck off", this > > one may take a bit of leverage. OS are *resisting bitterly*. > > > > Wonder if a representation from WMF would help or hinder.
> The data or the maps though. Copyright wise the two present a > different situation. > > However It's not as significant as it might seem. Open street maps > combined with contour data from the 7th series which is drifting into > the public domain render the issues mostly one of convenience. > > In terms of challenges tracking down copies that the owners will let > you scan of OS maps already in the public domain is going to be more > of a long term challenge. This is a political thing that the WMF, or at least WMUK, should be taking an active interest in. Were OS in the US all the data would be PD. -- Brian McNeil <brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org> Wikinewsie.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
