[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
balrogg at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 02:07:55 GMT 2012
On 18 January 2012 23:33, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 05:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the
>> intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to
>> OSM under CC-By-SA long before OSM existed. Now OSM uses their map
>> data and entire cities initially imported from their project are shown
>> green. This is a consequence of how LWG wrote the Contibutor Terms
>> and the cleanness-criteria.
> If somewhere an "entire city [is] shown green" then this means that
> *someone* in OSM has added "odbl=clean" to all the objects. That person, and
> not LWG, bears the responsibility. Can you point to an example?
Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28..
pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported
ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters
import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2.4 requiring
compatibility with only the current licensing terms, an account's
CT-acceptance and ODbL-compatibility are independent variables and
this leads to a lot of misunderstandings. (This should be fixed if
the database rebuild should use CT-acceptance as input, but the longer
it takes to notice the problem the more costly the fix is going to be)
>>> I can understand people when they can't agree to the CT's for a variety
>>> reasons, but why they would feel 'cheated' when the rest of us are merely
>>> trying to continue where they left off minimizing the damage, is beyond
>> And this is something I can not understand. Say that you're
>> contributing to a project with some purpose or license. Now a
>> subgroup of contributors wants to change this and continue without any
>> losses. If the original contributors don't think the new direction is
>> correct, why should they all have to help that subgroup?
> I think that Jo does not talk about "helping" (in terms of doing work), but
> just about letting what you call a "subgroup" have the data. I.e. they don't
> have to actively spend time; the work is already done; all it needs is a
> And while you're right in saying that just because you agree to let others
> have your work und free and open license A it doesn't mean that you also
> like free and open license B, the truth is that from a small distance, we're
> all in the same camp, the group of people who like free and open licenses.
> We might have our differences, some of us have a beard and prefer the team
> "free software" while others are clean-shaved and talk about "open source
> software", and so some this sounds like a real big deal, but you only have
> to take one step back and you'll see that basically we're all of the same
You're right here. When I said "new direction" I admit that's an
exaggeration if we're talking about CC-By-SA vs ODbL.
More information about the legal-talk