[OSM-legal-talk] The big license debate

[Lars Aronsson]

Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:

> Let's start with the opening sentence on the OSM web site. It's what
> most people coming to OSM see.

That statement wasn't there when I started to contribute to OSM, 
as far as I can remember.  I don't feel bound by it, and in some 
aspects I find its wording unfortunate.  Of course the "license" 
is a legal restriction.

In my opinion, OSM is on a mission to create a domain of freedom 
for map data and maps, similar to what exists in free software and 
other kinds of free contents.  For any such domain of freedom, it 
is essential that the freedom is extended to as large groups as 
possible.

Free software has demonstrated how this can be done, using the 
viral aspect of the GPL license.  Companies are frustrated that 
they cannot use GPL software as if they owned it, but have to 
comply with requirements to share the freedom.  As a result, many 
companies have become creative in finding new business models that 
combine their own profit-making with contributing to the domain of 
freedom.  That would not have happened without the viral aspect of 
the GPL.

It is still not quite as clear if Wikipedia's use of the GFDL and 
CC-SA licenses can have the same effect.  In several cases, 
traditional encyclopedia publishers have been found to plagiarize 
Wikipedia, but as far as I know, this has not forced any content 
from traditional encyclopedias to become free.  All that happened 
was that the copied contents was edited out.  That's a failure.

It is even more doubtful if OSM can make effective use of any 
viral license.  Much of what OSM has is map data that cannot be 
protected by traditional copyright, only by database rights.  Can 
an individual contributor own database rights, or is OSMF the sole 
owner of database rights?  That's a good question for a lawyer. 
Even though it is called a "license" (which is Latin for 
allowance, permission), its purpose is to stop our property from 
being used in the wrong way.  What we must ask is how powerful we 
can be in stopping such abuse.  The Free Software Foundation's 
general counsel Eben Moglen has told companies that break the GPL 
that FSF doesn't want money as compensation, they want compliance, 
i.e. that "infected" proprietary source code is released.  The 
idea is to explain to the company, that this is actually an easy 
way out. What do we want from the people or companies that violate 
our license?  And what means do we have to force them?

Apparently, Nestoria and ITN want to use OSM data.  Do these 
companies combine OSM data with any proprietary contents that we 
would like to see released into the open?  Can we use our license 
to that end?  Would these companies see that as an easy way out?
How can they help us to expand the domain of freedom in mapping?


-- 
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se