[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Why OpenStreetMap is not Wikipedia
frederik at remote.org
Sun Aug 3 17:41:28 BST 2008
>> It is very likely that none of the data we collect now will still be
>> used 20 years from now, because by then everything is so networked and
>> fully automatic and we have high resolution satellite images of
>> everywhere etc. etc. - will I then sit there and think it was all for
> I doubt it. I think the value of maps will only continue to rise.
> Except, looking into the future 3D maps is where its going to be at.
Maybe a misunderstanding here. I don't doubt that maps will be
everywhere. I just doubt it will be *our* maps or something derived from
>> Surely not, because the availability of free data *now* makes
>> sure that the market value of geodata goes down (makes ist more likely
>> that government agencies will provide them free), and also encourages
>> people to develop interesting techniques and software to work with that
> Er, I'm sure you mean the market cost of geodata. (How much it costs
> to obtain maps)
> The market value (how much people would pay for them, if they had to
> pay) isn't going down anytime soon.
Correct, that's what I meant. (I still think that Teleatlas & Co. will
see the value of their products decrease, i.e. the amount of money they
can make from them.)
> I think the biggest risk to the data becoming obsoleted is the current
> license. Its nigh-on impossible for anyone to build on OSM at the
> moment without fear of being sued.
Any share-alike license where the individuals remain the rights-holders
of data they contribute does theoretically open the possibility for any
contributing individual suing any user for perceived breach of license.
Whether this is a problem depends (a) on the risk-adversity of the
potential user, (b) on the lunacy of the contributor and (c) on the
amount of room our license leaves for interpretation (e.g. what is a
derived work, what is proper attribution).
In an earlier discussion somebody suggested that the Foundation draw up
a sort of pledge saying: "While the license technically does not affect
the Foundation - it only affects the user of the data and the
contributor granting the license -, the foundation interprets the
license as follows: .... And will stick to this interpretation if called
upon in legal matters." - Such a statement would at least enable the
potential users to know whether they'd have the foundation on their side
in case they get sued by a contributor.
I'm setting a Followup to legal-talk as such things aren't generally of
interest to people on talk.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the legal-talk