Re: Campaign for rejecting Inspire directive?

Jo Walsh wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:38:32AM +0200, Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:
> 
>>>http://okfn.org/geo/minifesto.php is the attempt i have made to do
>>>this. There is a draft non-commercial use Creative Commons based license linked
>>
>>note that a license for non-commercial use in conjunction with example
>>of the US-Model is a bad idea. The US-Model is successful because it is
>>not just 'free for non-commercial use' - they made the data public domain
>>which naturally inludes the commercial use.
> 
> 
> Noted. An argument i have seen often from the NMA lobby is, 'the US
> model has not worked because commercial entities (NavTEQ, mapquest et al)
> can augment and re-use state geodata to great profit without no obligation
> to put enhancements into the public domain, thus the timeliness and accuracy
> of state-collected geodata, especially in local government, suffers'.
>  
> A ShareAlike clause helps bypass the criticisms of the US model; data
> is open to commercial re-use as long as enhancements are contributed
> back to the 'public domain'. 
> 
> (Often quoted against the US model is Laila Aslesen, IP lawyer for Norway's NMA.
> I heard anecdotally that Norway's emergency services can no longer
> access the spatial data they used to for search-and-rescue purposes,
> because the commercial entity responsible for collection, decided that
> sales cost/benefit was no longer economically viable in remote areas.)
>  
> 
>>Next, I believe that we have the chance only for a single license within
>>decades to get lobbied until implementation.
>>Though a free-for-non-commercial-use license might be easier and faster
>>to get a consensus on, it would block the implementation of a license
>>concept similar to the US and thus block all the economic potentials.
> 
> 
> Currently, small businesses or local government agencies feel pressured 
> to retain IP rights in geodata because 'everyone else is doing so, 
> we'll lose out if we don't, and be squashed by the major players'. 
> 
> Again, a ShareAlike license for the distribution of state-collected
> geodata would help defuse this situation; smaller organisations would
> not lose by putting data into the public domain; larger organisations
> would not unduly gain at public expense. 
> 
> 
> -jo

(ignore this if this has already been discussed in detail)

Why not stick to the GNU/FDL? Its simple and effective.

Try me on any definiton of "non-commercial use" or "commercial use" and 
i will find abundant arguments against them. None will not work with the 
emerging open distributed spatial server architectures.

Besides that, the public administration (as a system) has long ago 
decided to free all data and there is practically no more poccibility of 
turning back. The people *governing* public administrations are on the 
verge of understanding but just don't want to believe it yet.

Best, Arnulf.