[OSM-legal-talk] Re: [OSM-talk] The long tail - lowest common denominator

[Jo Walsh]

dear Richard, all,
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> == 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"]

There are a couple of meta-level "free information definition" efforts 
which are converging, have FSF heritage and could inform this:
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
http://okfn.org/okd/
And i guess the "Open Geodata Manifesto" of last year was also an
effort to express some of this in terms of geodata 
http://okfn.org/geo/manifesto.php 
That is to say, I'd love this to evolve into an "open geodata
definition" that could apply to a lot more than OSM; it would be super
useful to OSGeo; and it's appetising to talk in these terms rather than 
glom onto "licensing", as you note below ...

> == 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]
Right, the FSD states "``Free software'' does not mean
``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial
use, commercial development, and commercial distribution." 
Who really thinks this should be on the 'maybe' list? ;)

> 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]

Richard, how's your thoughts on a alternative-to-sharealike /
collective license stance developing? 

> 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.]

:)

> (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.)

Amen,


jo