27 Oct
2003
27 Oct
'03
8:51 p.m.
Earle Martin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:23:24PM +0000, David
Cantrell wrote:
Yes, I realised on the way home this evening that kake had probably
meant what proof was there that users hadn't just cut n' pasted data
from streetmap. And of course there's no way for me to be able to tell.
Of course, the whole of Openguides suffers from this. Who can tell
whether some random review is cut n' pasted from (eg) the Evening
Standard's website?
And I think I owe an apology. I was far too grumpy when I posted this
afternoon.
--
Grand Inquisitor David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" -- H. L. Mencken
Streetmap are as welcome to look at the source
code as you are. I've
checked the code for Geography::NationalGrid too, to make sure that's
not doing anything naughty.
The thing is, sure they can comb through the code, but
there's nothing that
proves the source of the data itself. However, not being a lawyer, I don't
know on whom the burden of proof would be if we were taken to court - the
plaintiff, or the defendants? I don't see how either side could prove
anything. Anyone here know a lawyer?