[OSM-legal-talk] Rules for the foundation to hold data assigned to it under

tim chippy2005 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 21 13:13:01 BST 2007

I'm also a bit perplexed!. but I think we are thinking within already
existing frameworks, why don't we take it upon ourselves to define a
situation where all conditions are met?

I think everyone who creates part of the map:
Wants, free to use data
Wants, attribution
Would be nice, something coming back
We should be thinking in new ways for these rules (call it the Chip
Licence if you want!)

But my main point, is that soon, OSM will have more users of the data
than map contributors (i.e. GIS users in councils using osm as their
road layer), the foundation, and talk of data licences are being
focused from the point of view of the makers, the early
pioneers....the project will overtake these pioneers soon, so we
should look to the future where its how someone can use the data, and
how another can maintain the data that's the key thing.

On 7/21/07, OJW <streetmap at blibbleblobble.co.uk> wrote:
> On Friday 20 July 2007 23:28, you wrote:
> > >> PD data will always be free
> > >
> > > It's trivial to convert PD data to restrictively-licensed data.
> >
> > That doesn't make the original PD data any less free.
> It means that contributors are rewarded for making restrictively-licensed
> changes to the map (by getting exclusive rights to a map which is better than
> the PD map they started with), and that contributors are not rewarded for
> making freely-copiable changes to the map (other people just rip-off their
> work and sell it without giving anything back)
> It means that the latest copy of the map is not necessarily available for you
> to use.
> You just have to pay to host the out-of-date "public domain" version from
> before people started adding their cool proprietary stuff to the map.
> It makes it very rewarding for sombody to make a restrictively-licensed fork
> of the project, attracting the community of contributors to their project
> (and away from OSM), e.g. with the promise of extra features that are only
> available in the proprietary version.
> Those "extra features" could even be as simple as an advertising campaign and
> the backing of a well-known company.  Suddenly the general public knows that
> they can play with this "nearly free" (proprietary) project containing all
> our footpaths etc, and never know the existance of original project, nor
> understand why they might want to contribute freely-copiable data.
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

More information about the legal-talk mailing list