[OSM-legal-talk] US local government data: negotiating license?

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:19:15AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Simon Ward wrote:
> > OSM might be considered non‐commercial
> 
> OSM *is not* a commercial enterprise. Not "might be considered".

OSM is not directly commercial, but enables commercial use by anyone.
Anything that does not allow commercial use is incompatible with OSM
data licensing (and if it became so I would immediately withdraw).

> The text in question says (paraphrased): "OSM is a noncommercial 
> project, we collect data for everyone to use as they see fit.".

What the text says and how it comes across are two different things.  If
the text is in any way unclear, the licensor can claim they
misinterpreted it and since it’s their data, and their intent holds more
weight than anybody else’s, it is entirely understandable they can just
withdraw and leave us with having to remove the data if it has already
been imported (or other projects to go through similar removal).

> That text is, in my eyes, not incorrect, not even misleading

It could be perceived as misleading from their point of view, and that’s
what matters.  I would like to be as honest as I possibly can, and not
misleading at all about getting people to contributed their data.  Even
if you say that OSM is a non‐commercial project, and I agree with that,
there is no need to try and emphasise that and de‐emphasise commercial
re‐use in an effort to get data off someone.  I would emphasise that
commercial re‐use is intended.  We may not get the data, but at least
it’s honest.
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20081007/5dad4881/attachment.pgp>