[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [ORG-discuss] Open Data Commons draft licence

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemeD.net
Tue Sep 25 17:44:51 BST 2007

Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Am I reading this right:
> 1. What the mapper collects is "data", and would be expected to be
> licensed under the BSD-like "factual info licence". This would mean a
> relaxation compared to the current situation; currently if someone
> puts in a true fact I can use that freely (because facts are free)
> but if malicious Eve maps an easter egg she can sue me for copyright
> infringement if I use that. With all data being explicitly under the
> "factual info license", this cannot happen because Eve would
> explicitly release her easter egg as a "fact".
> 2. The mapper then combines his "data" into a "database" of his own
> (an OSM file created with JOSM for example).
> 3. By uploading the databases to OSM, a "collective database" is
> formed, with the requirement to give attribution to the "names of
> databases" used in forming the collective database (not: names of
> individuals).
> Do others read it likewise, or do you think that what the mapper has
> is only data, and the database is only created when uploading? Or
> would you say that the user has a database and when uploading, a
> "derivative database" is formed?

I'm with you on 1, but not on 2.

The mapper isn't so much creating a database as editing the single OSM  
database remotely. Read in the context of EU database rights, it's  
significant that what you're editing in JOSM has the same structure  
and purpose as the OSM database, and (unless you're editing an area  
with no connections to other OSM data) exists in conjunction with the  
rest of the database.

My understanding is that, _if_ we were to adopt these pair of  
licences, we would need to replace the current sign-up text with:

"By creating an account, you agree that all work uploaded to  
openstreetmap.org and all data created by use of any tools which  
connect to openstreetmap.org is to be licensed under the Open Data  
Commons Factual Info Licence."

and that we would need to replace the CC licence link with a main link  
to the Open Database Licence, plus an additional link to the Factual  
Info Licence (probably both via an intermediate page that explains how  
the licensing works).

Attribution would no longer be required for individual mappers (under  
the Factual Info Licence), only for OSM as a whole (under the Database  


More information about the legal-talk mailing list