|
|
|
|
|
|
by dingaling
4482 days ago
|
|
|
> I would not contribute if companies (e.g. Google) could just take the data and not give back to OSM. Why not? OSM still remains useful and authorative. I see this in photography circles with Creative Commons. People choosing 'No Commmercial' clauses so that companies 'can't make money with my work'; but there is no negative impact on the photographer if a company does so, so why care? If Google makes $100 million with my photograph, or with my OSM contributions, then that's dandy. It doesn't affect me and it doesn't undermine OSM. |
|
|
> It doesn't affect me and it doesn't undermine OSM.
Just that that's exactly what it does. Google takes OSM data, combines it with their great services and gives nothing back and now there is less initiative for people to use OSM.
> People choosing 'No Commmercial' clauses so that companies 'can't make money with my work'; but there is no negative impact on the photographer if a company does so, so why care?
Yes there is. If you give it out for free when google would otherwise had payed it means that some photographer didn't get payed because you have it away for fee. So overall photographers befit if they all don''t give it out for free, because that means the company has to pay one of the if they need a picture.