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

80n 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
> system."
>
> (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.)
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20070722/e8402d4b/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list