[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM layer into Adobe Illustrator?

[rob at robmyers.org]

Quoting Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> If you buy a dataset from OSM, there's a very detailed written  
> explanation on what you may and may not do with the data. And if you  
> are in doubt wheter it is ok to use the data for a specific project,  
> you can ask them and get a definitve, and legally binding, answer.

If OSM could afford to get in-house lawyers that would be great.

> If I am not mistaken it was you who laughed at people who hoped to  
> get such kinds of answers from the providers of OSM data. "Hire a  
> lawyer yourself", you said.
>
> From this alone, it should be obvious that, at least currently,  
> using OSM data does pose a higher risk of legal troubles that using  
> commercially licensed data.

I don't recommend accepting a legal opinion from a vendor, even a government
vendor, without getting it checked. IANAL, TINLA. ;-)

> The idea that "gaining new data" is the paramount goal of OSM and  
> anything that doesn't have an influence on "OSM gaining new data"  
> does not harm OSM is short-sighted.

The immediate and long-term value of the project to would-be free riders comes
from the ongoing addition of new data. If it didn't we wouldn't be having this
debate, as all the would-be free riders would be happy to just use their own
data.

> We are very much interested in world domination, er, a very  
> widespread use of our data (which, in turn, will make us better known 
>  and perhaps lead to more contributions!). Anything that hinders such 
>  widespread use could be interpreted - and is by Y.T. - as harming 
> OSM.

Then going PD would be catastrophic, as it would hinder widespread use 
and harm
OSM in the long term by discouraging contribution and removing the freedom to
use the work as broadly as possible.

- Rob.