<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I designed a license concept that’s relevant as an alternative way of thinking about this:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="http://stevecoast.com/2015/09/30/license-ascent/" class="">http://stevecoast.com/2015/09/30/license-ascent/</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On a different note: It’s a false dichotomy to compare OSM and Public Domain, it’s really about comparing buying a proprietary map (which the OP didn’t mention that I saw) and OSM. If you want all these rights, you can just pick up the phone and pay HERE or TomTom for them, they’d love to hear from you. From that standpoint OSM looks wonderful of course.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Steve</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <<a href="mailto:seav80@gmail.com" class="">seav80@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Mr. Stace D Maples <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:stacemaples@stanford.edu" target="_blank" class="">stacemaples@stanford.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">
<div class=""><div class=""><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="">One other question, and I’m just curious, not trying to start a flame war. Isn’t some of the data in OSM from public domain datasets? If so, what is the OSM rationale for placing a more restrictive licensing model on that data?</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Well, this issue is actually a "religious" war most commonly known as the BSD vs. GPL debate.<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Personally, I take issue with your statement that ODbL is a "more restrictive" license than public domain. It all depends on your definition of "restrictive" vis-a-vis "freedom". Public domain or CC-BY-style licensing (aka BSD style) does provide the immediate user with a lot more rights than a share-alike license like ODbL or CC-BY-SA (aka GPL style). However, those rights are only guaranteed for the immediate user. The immediate user can add his own improvements to it and then make those improvements proprietary—a usage right that's allowed. Unfortunately, other users cannot make use of those improvements.<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On the other hand, a share-alike license aims to be a more sustainable model. It restricts the immediate user on only one aspect: the right to make a share-alike content/data/IP proprietary is explicitly disallowed. This ensures that any improvements are shared back to the community, unlike with the BSD-style licensing.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For me, share-alike licensing for OSM data is a net positive. This licensing ensures that nobody can take the data, improve it to make it even more valuable and then make it proprietary.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">legal-talk mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org" class="">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>