[OSM-legal-talk] The big license debate

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

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

I am not free to create a mass market product that uses the same rules 
other comparable products use. I might be free to create a book from the 
data, but I'll not find a publisher because the book doesn't follow the 
same rules other books do.

> But these are not 
> restrictions on OSM's part, and it is morally questionable to suggest 
> that they are.

Yeah, cool. "You are free to speak your mind, however we'll shoot anyone 
who listens to you. This is not a restriction of your freedom of speech, 
and it is morally questionable to suggest it is."

Come on, this is splitting hairs.

> 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?

The "cannot".

But: If my English is not totally broken, then "the same freedom" would 
refer to the freedom that I enjoyed: taking OSM data and making 
something from it. *That* same freedom of course exists for everyone, 
completely undisturbed by my making a proprietary work based on OSM data.

> 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.

Denying someone the freedom to do as they please with a product is part 
of the creator's 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.

Yes but such restrictions are part of a larger moral framework used by 
the community as a whole. I have no intention of making OSM a vehicle to 
change society with the aim of all data being "share-alike" at some time 
in the future.

> 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.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this. Let's say I spend a man-year working 
on an atlas based on OSM data. Finally it goes into print. The cost of 
the book in a bookshop will contain taxes, profit for the bookshop, 
profit for the publisher, production cost, and payment for my year of 
work. Another publisher can now take the book, reproduce it, and sell it 
for the same price minus my payment. People will buy his version rather 
than mine. (His business model is solid; he has to publish BY-SA but 
since anyone copying *his* book will incur roughly the same cost, it is 
not an attractive proposition for competitors.) I will go unpaid, my 
publisher will sit on his expenses. From this, it follows that neither I 
nor my publisher can afford to produce the atlas in the first place.

Of course BY-SA does not prohibit me from creating the atlas. It just 
makes sure that it's economic suicide, i.e. it can only be done on a 
"hobbyist, spare-time" basis.

>> 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.

True. I honestly believe that if we were to write to all contributors 
saying "we're changing to PD, do you want us to remove your data then?", 
perhaps 5% would say "yes please remove it". If we'd set up the same 
letter saying "we're changing to CC-BY-SA, do you want us to remove your 
data then?", I'd expect a response of about 5% saying "why, weren't we 
CC-BY-SA to boot?". The rest doesn't care. I think.

>>> 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 think there are more things than "quick bids for fame and cash" that 
are influenced by the license!

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

Maybe "assuming good faith" is what makes me want to go PD and believe 
that people will still do the right thing. Maybe I'm just naive.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'