[OSM-legal-talk] Re: [OSM-talk] The long tail - lowest common denominator
Richard Fairhurst
richard at systemeD.net
Fri Jul 7 09:05:32 BST 2006
If we're going to talk privacy policy and licences, I guess it might be
an idea to establish what we all believe in - what we all believe OSM
should be.
Here's a brief list of "project aims and shared beliefs" as I see it,
in an attempt to find a bottom line we can all sign up to. If we agree,
we can go on to debate anything over and above this. Some of you may
recognise the first few points...
== Things we can all agree on ==
1. The freedom for anyone to use OSM geodata for any purpose [=FSF
"freedom 0"]
2. The freedom for anyone to access OSM geodata "source" (e.g.
planet.osm or a db dump, subject to any privacy concerns) [=FSF
"freedom 1"]
3. The freedom to redistribute copies of OSM geodata [=FSF "freedom 2"]
4. The freedom to add your own material to OSM geodata, and if you
like, to release this to the public [=FSF "freedom 3"]
== Things we can maybe agree on? ==
5. You can charge money for products using OSM geodata as long as the
licence terms are satisfied. [=not CC-NC]
6. You can superimpose a "layer" or "mashup" on top of OSM geodata with
no restrictions on the licence of the other layer/mashup data. [=Imi's
"I created a layer..." in the Legal FAQ]
7. OSM/OSMF exists to provide and promote geodata licensed according to
(...the terms we settle on). It doesn't exist to promote that ideology
in a wider context. [By which I mean: even if we settle on a CC
licence, we're not here to advocate CC-ness in general. Same goes if we
settle on PD or a GNU licence or something with ninjas in it.]
8. OSM's licence should, in general, aim to be more liberal/permissive
than the copyright laws of the countries in which it operates.
9. The licence should be as unambiguous as possible, to avoid lawyer
troubles.
Is this about right or have I missed the point? Yell if you have
problems with any of the above.
(As yet I don't think we're looking for "yes but"s... additional
requirements can come later.)
I've expressly avoided using the word "free" because it _may_ mean
different things to different people. I've written this with no thought
as to whether the end result will be CC-By-SA, something GNUish, public
domain, or an entirely new licence.
(BTW, worth noting that not all our aims have to be achieved through a
licence. Licences are great for forbidding things - "thou shalt not".
But when we want to say "we shall", we could also consider using the
aims of the OSM Foundation. Charitable aims are legally binding in the
UK and I guess in some other countries.)
cheers
Richard
P.S. NickB - seconded, Imi - good to have you back, Steve - congrats
for being brave enough to answer all this openly and honestly. Dammit,
we're all so _nice_. ;)
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list