[OSM-legal-talk] moving up the stack

[Tom Chance]

Ahoy,

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:24:52 +0000, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemeD.net> wrote:
> As it stands, if I'd used OSM data for such a map, I wouldn't have  
> been able to say that.
> 
> That's fine. But what I don't understand is _why_ OSM doesn't want me  
> to be able to do that. When I'm holed up in a shack halfway up a  
> mountain, that few quid will be my daily wage, which is why I care.

It's a bit like asking: why do free software advocates not want people to run a small business that profits from selling user licenses to their handy shareware utility? There are two answers, both of which I agree with.

1. Because any licensing arrangement will block certain business models, and ways for non-commercial groups and individuals to use the maps. In the scheme of things, though this may ruin your very tempting vision of your future (how I’d love to do the same some day!), that business model isn’t so important that we should cut off many others. We’ll get the data either way.

2. Because we are interested in providing and promoting free use of the software and data, in protecting and building a vibrant community that can enlarge creative / business / etc. opportunities based on maps and geodata. Re-licensing to suit your business model simply violates that principle.

As I said before, if argument 1 is demonstrably false – if the share-alike license seems to cut off more opportunities than it offers – then I’d be worried. But I’m not convinced that it does.

Incidentally, given comments from Steve and Rob about the scope of share-alike and derivative works, you might find you could still work up a business model around a CC BY-SA licensed OSM project.

Kind regards,
Tom