[OSM-legal-talk] The big license debate

[Rob Myers]

Frederik Ramm wrote:

 > The statement suggests that OpenStreetMap, unlike "most maps you
 > think of as free", has no legal or technical restrictions on its use,
 > and thus will not hold back people from using it in "creative,
 > productive or unexpected ways".
 >
 > This is simply and obviously not true.

It does not have any legal or technological restrictions that prevent 
you from using the maps however you like. It is therefore true.

This isn't to say that other sources of data might not have techical or 
legal restrictions that prevent you from using them with OSM. Or that 
people won't refuse to use BY-SA work without being able to prevent 
other people from doing the same with their work. But these are not 
restrictions on OSM's part, and it is morally questionable to suggest 
that they are.

People keep comparing BY-SA unfavourably to Google Maps' terms and 
conditions. Which, unlike BY-SA, do not allow use of the work to be 
charged for, and allow Google to start inserting advertising into the 
data at any time...

> The emphasis here being "free of charge", not free as in freedom. I  
> still maintain that anything published unter CC-BY-SA does not  
> warrant the attribute "free".

You are free to use it as you wish, and you cannot prevent others from 
having the same freedom. What's not free about that?

> This thread is about changing *either* the license *or* the stated  
> aim of the project, because they are not compatible.

They are entirely compatible. What is not compatible with either are the 
demands of some people and organizations to be allowed to (be forced to) 
use OSM in a way that denies others the same freedom.

You are not less free in a society that does not allow you to own slaves 
or to steal other people's property. In fact "restrictions" such as 
these are vital for a free society.

>> The value of SA is enormous; it builds a community and prevents  
>> others from “cashing out” and taking our work for their own without  
>> contributing back. As OSM grows the clause will facilitate healthy  
>> competition without letting companies take the work so far, say  
>> “thank you very much” and drop all support for the community.
> 
> This mindset comes through in many of the postings.

It is an argument, not a mindset. It is an argument supported by 
historical examples of non-copyleft licensing of community projects.

> But as a  
> contributor, I am not expecting something back either. I work with  
> the project because (and as long as) it is fun. This fun is  
> completely independent of what others might do. I would, in fact,  
> derive some satisfaction from someone setting up big business with  
> the stuff I helped to create, attribution or no attribution. A little  
> bit of envy would of course always go with it (why wasn't it me who  
> invented that, why don't I get a share of his big bucks), but no  
> license will alleviate that.

A business is perfectly able to charge for BY-SA material and for 
services that use it.

BY-SA is not anti-commerce, anti-corporate, anti-economic-freedom or 
whatever.

>  And I believe that the "silent
> majority" just doesn't care, so please don't count them as votes for  
> the status quo.

Then it cannot be the case that the majority believe that the license 
doesn't fit the mission.

>> The two together are really quite toxic. Let’s not sacrifice reason  
>> and the future of the OSM community on the altar of quick bids for  
>> fame and cash.
> 
> I desire neither.

Then the license is not an issue.

>> I'm willing to help put together a comprehensive legal FAQ on CC BY- 
>> SA, BSD and PD in good time for SoTM
> 
> Sounds to me like you would have to put a lot of effort in to achieve  
> a NPOV.

Remember to "assume good faith". The good thing about wikis is that NPOV 
emerges from people discussing differing viewpoints.

- Rob.