[OSM-legal-talk] Rules for the foundation to hold data assigned to it under
80n80n at gmail.com
Sun Jul 22 00:57:15 BST 2007
On 7/22/07, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> 80n wrote:
> If OSM had been a public domain licensed project then I don't believe that
> we would be where we are now. To take one example, the People's Map (
> www.peoplesmap.com), would now have all our mapping data for the whole of
> London, instead of just a few major roads. I don't see them planning to put
> any of the data they collect into OSM or the public domain.
> I'm not sure that AND would have donated their data to OSM if we were
> using a PD license. That would be the equivalent of giving their data to
> Navteq and TeleAtlas on a plate.
> But I think we have different opinions on whether any of this matters.
> Sure, TeleAtlas could take AND's data. Given that TeleAtlas is a
> Netherlands-based company with their own data I think they're pretty
> unlikely to want to do so. Sure, People's Map could take our mapping data
> for London, or Oxford, or anywhere.
Well, actually, no - the People's Map couldn't. Not unless they change
their license to one that is compatible to CC-BY-SA.
It doesn't really make any difference to us whether they do or not. They're
> never going to be able to match OSM because there's no fun, no sense of
> community, no sense of ownership.
It makes an enormous difference to us if it means that organisations like
AND then chose to not release their data. Why did AND release their data
under CC-BY-SA? Why didn't they release their data into the public domain?
Perhaps we should ask them a) why they chose CC-BY-SA, and b) whether they
would be prepared to release it into the public domain as well.
Heavens, there isn't even a map editor yet. But they promise that there will
> be; it'll be Flash-based (http://forum.peoplesmap.com/forums/3/topics/14);
> and it'll originate from OSM (see credits at http://peoplesmap.com/).
> Sounds familiar? And (assuming I've guessed correctly) they can do this, of
> course, because Potlatch is public domain. I am supremely relaxed about
> this, and am confident it will do them bugger all good whatsoever. If, in
> two months' time, they have conquered the world by the power of a modified
> version of Potlatch, feel free to remind me I said this.
As Frederik wrote earlier:
> "What will happen is: commercial entities will do exactly what you say,
> make some additions and sell it, but before they know it we will have
> overtaken them, again and again and again, because no commercial company can
> match exponential growth. So it is *they* who will be struggling to continue
> incorporating the new material we produce daily into their proprietary
> (Incidentally, I'm trying to resist deploying the shibboleths of the GPL
> vs BSD debate - not because of the lack of arguments: after all, I'll take
> your Linux and raise you one Apache - but because data is fundamentally
> different to software and, for that matter, creative works, and perhaps if
> that were more widely appreciated we wouldn't have such an issue with
> licensing at all.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk