[Openstreetmap] The bigger picture
tom at tom-carden.co.uk
Tue Feb 14 17:43:41 GMT 2006
On 2/14/06, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> I don't think pejorative language like "locking up", "sleight of hand" or
> "parasitically" gets the argument very far.
As I said a moment ago, I see 'locking up' as a bad thing too. I'd
said something earlier which implied I thought it was a good thing, so
I was making sure people didn't think I was advocating it.
As for 'sleight of hand' - I'm still having trouble seeing how
changing one word really helps, that's all. What you're really doing
is defining the useful 'work' done by the OSM project as collecting
geodata... fine, but I think it's more than that, that's all.
As for parasitically, I believe that sharealike licenses are
parasitic/viral. I don't think that's a bad thing.
> You've doubtless got your
> own views
> on which licences will lead to a better world, I've got mine, clearly Imi and
> Lars have theirs, and probably everyone else on the list has, too. Half of
> Usenet is taken up by GPL vs. BSD flames, and recreating this on the OSM list
> doesn't get us very far.
I really don't care about licenses (I certainly don't have a
favourite), aside from how they affect the way that people view the
project and the way that people interact with and contribute to it. I
don't believe everything has an objectively correct answer either -
the best license for OpenStreetMap, for some value of best, is a
crazily hard thing to decide, and one that we've backed out of
discussing at length on the list before for good reason.
It really is interesting to hear that your interpretation of CC
ShareAlike licenses means that you don't think you can use
OpenStreetMap geodata in a commercial publication. That's a real
shame. I really would like to persuade you that you're wrong, but I'm
not in publishing, I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't tried it... I hope
I'm right though, because I don't see a way around it. (Certain
members of the community will steadfastly refuse to relicense their
data, as we've seen. I'm not one of them, but then my contributions
on the data end are minor).
> I've contributed data (GPS tracks and, underway atm, the New Popular
> Edition map
> scans) to OSM because I believe in the wider good of free geodata. CC-BY-SA
> wouldn't be my first licence of choice; likewise, I'm an amateur Perlmonger,
> not a Rubyite; but I'm happy to overlook both of these and countless others,
> because if none of us compromised, there wouldn't be a project.
Absolutely. You also contribute a big pile of much-needed common
sense and pragmatism, and experience from your own project. I'm sure
I'm not the only one who's noticed.
> What I've been trying to suggest this afternoon is simply a pragmatic way in
> which OSM could earn some funding without (as I see it) any danger to the
> ideals of the project.
I was trying to suggest some things like that too.
> You don't like it, that's cool.
That's not true. With respect to licensing, I don't see a real
difference between geodata and maps, but your persistence is helping
in this respect. It's certainly not my place to argue with you and
your boss's decisions about using OSM data(though I can and do
question their basis).
> But cruelly (and
> subjectively) characterising others' opinions with little jibes like "locking
> up the data" does no good whatsoever and frankly just serves to put off
> thin-skinned people like me.
I really didn't aim that at you - it was self-criticism!
> (Writing this has coincided with your latest reply coming in. I don't see that
> continuing the fisking will get anyone anywhere so, if you're all right with
> that, I'll leave it to rest here.)
Probably wise, but thanks for taking the time so far. I was about to
bow out myself for the same reason (but I managed not to take personal
offence... even at Lars and Imi's militant stance against any
discussion of pay-for services!).
I'll leave us with this recent Wired article:
More information about the talk