[OSM-legal-talk] The big license debate

[Ian Davis]

On 28/02/2007 14:06, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> To start the debate: I believe that the aims are valid. I believe that
> we need a license that lets people download the data, make maps from it,
> and be able to do what they please with those maps. I believe people
> should have a moral responsibility, but not necessarily a legal one, to
> contribute back to the original source data information about any errors
> or omissions they find out about, and can reasonably resolve.

I think OSM has a responsibility to ensure this data and the effort by 
its contributors is preserved openly for the future. Storing, providing 
access to and maintaining huge datasets isn't a trivial task even with 
the falling costs of infrastructure. Can we be sure that 10, 20 or 30 
years hence OSM will have the finances and people available to preserve 
open access to this data? It's too easy for public domain data to become 
effectively inaccessible behind commercial walls.

I'd like to know in advance that any contribution I make isn't going to 
be appropriated by a commercial entity. I have no issues whatsoever with 
commercial entities using the data for commercial gain but I do object 
strongly to that being the _only_ way they offer the data. In my view 
part of the "price" to the commercial entity for using the data is to 
share the burden hosting it.

For me this means the licence needs to have the share-alike/gpl quality.

Ian