[HOT] Non-Commercial Licenses
kate at maploser.com
Tue Apr 8 19:13:16 UTC 2014
I wanted to point out the paper *Consequences, risks and side-effects of
the license module "non-commercial use only - NC"*(1). Personally I've
never thought NC licenses make sense for most uses. Though this white paper
points out that often what people/organizations are actually trying to
avoid/prevent is not helped by NC licensing.
Jaakko to bring up the eduction example. There is question regarding
charging tuition for a class, is that still non-commercial?
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com <jaakko at helleranta.com
> Hi all,
> It's clear that any data that anyone desires to add to OSM must be
> available with a license that doesn't restrict commercial use. That's not
> where the point is here.
> But what's interesting in the German court ruling -- which seems to me to
> be for example stricter (to my understanding) than the Creative Commons'
> (the organization's) interpretation of the NC clause of the CC licenses --
> is that it would indeed seem to rule (practically?) all but personal use
> out of the appropriate use of content with non-commercial clause.
> And this is in conflict with so many "established" uses of the NC clause
> (including humanitarian and other NGOs and a huge range of educational
> uses, etc, etc) that it will be interesting to see if this has an impact to
> those -- and if/when we'll see more legal cases in this field?
> As a possible positive outcome of this (for OSM) it could happen that some
> of the established NC-users might re-evaluate their licene and NC clauses
> might loose popularity. Since the NC clause also requires sharing alike
> (for the NC clause to not get lost) this could mean more potential data for
> OSM as well as more potential (integrated) uses for OSM data (as taking out
> the NC would in principle make the licenses "attribution--share-alike" what
> OdBL is at heart..).
> jaakko at helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +505-8845-3391 (Nicaragua)
> * Voice(mail) / SMS / What's app: +1-202-730-9778 *
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Peter Wendorff <wendorff at uni-paderborn.de>wrote:
>> even if it would not be restricted to personal use, any data that is put
>> to OSM has to be under a license that allows commercial use, too.
>> HOT has a special purpose, but as long as it's data is living in OSM,
>> that data may be used for commercial purposes as well and therefore data
>> sources used by the HOT members have to be valid under the OSM umbrella
>> as well which contains nearly unlimited commercial use as well.
>> IMHO - although I'm not a lawyer - the court decision you refer to is
>> out of scope here, even a very liberal view of "non-commercial" is too
>> restrictive for OSM.
>> Am 08.04.2014 19:54, schrieb Kate Chapman:
>> > It was mentioned earlier about how some groups, especially
>> > humanitarian groups often choose to use non-commercial licenses on
>> > their data. This of course causing an incompatibility with OSM.
>> > There recently was a court ruling in Germany that decided that
>> > Non-Commercial is only for personal use(1). This would mean that NC
>> > licenses are not appropriate for humanitarian data. It will be
>> > interesting to see if there are further court rulings.
>> > -Kate
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > HOT mailing list
>> > HOT at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HOT