[OSM-legal-talk] A very brief brief for our new licence

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sat Oct 4 21:05:47 BST 2008


> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
> Sent: 04 October 2008 12:49
> To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A very brief brief for our new
> licence
> 
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:18:00AM +0000, Johann H. Addicks wrote:
> > [Attribution]
> > > unless they receive a formal request from the
> > > foundation for the work not to be attributed.
> >
> > I strongly disagree with this part.
> > Omitting the attribution should not be an option.
> 
> I too disagree with that part of the brief.  Although we would allow
> collective attribution to the OpenStreetMap project, OSM != OSMF.  OSMF
> should have no right to waive attribution on behalf of contributors to
> OSM.  Collective attribution also does not mean any other rights than
> that of individual attribution is waived.  If someone did want
> attribution to be waived, all rights holders would have to be contacted,
> effectively making it impractical anyway.
>

I agree with the sentiment and it is only other distractions that have meant
that I haven't removed that bit yet. I will get to it real soon now!

I am however hearing agreement with everything except this particular detail
which is good.

I do want to point out that the significant difference between CCbySA and
the proposed licence which is that the former ensures that all derivate
works are CCbySA but does not require the down stream user to share the
Derivative DB. 

Under CCbySA if someone renders a beautiful map of canals in the West
Midlands (to give one example that has been discussed), and this beautiful
is a 'derived work' under the rules of CCbySA (unless in is a collective
work incorporating 'other distinct significant artistic works') then the
person would need to mark it CCbySA and others could photocopy it and
distribute it as has been mentioned on the list.

The new licence however makes it abundantly clear that one must share any
Derivative DB, but that it does allow 'end user experiences' using the data
to been licenced with less restriction, including (c).

I support this clause because it allows people (including my company) to
create value-added works from OSM that can produce money for them to support
their effort and skill and that can be protected by copyright.

Anyone doing this would of course face fierce competition from FOSS projects
who have access to the same data, but if the offering used huge amounts of
computing power, or very advanced software that was not available to the
FOSS community them they might be able carve a commercial niche for at least
a short period!


Regards,



Peter

> Simon
> --
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
> simple system that works.-John Gall





More information about the legal-talk mailing list