[OSM-legal-talk] moving up the stack

[Tom Chance]

Ahoy,

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:46:53 +0000, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemeD.net> wrote:
> Tom Chance wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Ok, I'm trying to follow you here, but please excuse me if I'm being slow.
> 
> How does facilitating what I (and others) would like to do cut off
> many other business models? How would it prevent "a vibrant community
> that can enlarge creative/business/etc. opportunities based on maps
> and geodata"?

First, standard disclaimer: we still don’t have definitive legal opinion on the “intellectual property” rights covering the GPS traces, the OSM database and the maps OSM produces, nor on the meaning/scope of “derivative works”.

You're proposing PD dedication, right? Well that isn't a licensing model, so it doesn't block business models at least because it’s unfettered access. But it does harm our ability to develop the mapping database because whilst you may be nice and contribute your data to OSM, and keep your maps to yourself, others won’t play nice. This is an old, much-rehearsed argument, but there you go, it’s the central practical issue. PD dedication also violates the principle of building the vibrant community because it puts the acquisitive interests of certain individuals above the interests of the community at large. It says, “I’m more important than the OSM community”.

It’s classical liberalism – design laws that maximise liberty for all, rather than protecting special interests at the expense of others’ liberty.

I’m just turning your question on its head. Why should we all lose the benefits that share-alike affords us, just because you want to work off a particular business model that it might not support, especially when it will likely support many other business models? Copyleft advocates faced down similar demands with the GPL, and just look at how the free software community has prospered.

Incidentally the success of free software is one reason why I think it's completely braindead to dismiss the share-alike advocates as hopeless idealists out to bring down copyright altogether. That's never been the stated aim of all share-alike-for-maps advocates, it's not my aim, and I do not consider myself an idealist. Plenty of people thought Steve was hopelessly idealistic when he started OSM and look how far it has come under share-alike!

Regards,
Tom