[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL for the DB; what about the contents?

[Simon Ward]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:16:16AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>     let's try to sort this out, I think I still not get your point fully.
> 
> Simon Ward wrote:
> > I’m about creating a world map that’s free for the world and remains
> > free for the world.
> 
> I'll recap the typical concept behind that: If our database were PD then 
> it would be free but it would not be sure to *remain* free because it 
> could be incorporated into something proprietary which is much better 
> than us, people would flock to the proprietary thing and OSM would be 
> dead. Right?

> Google Map Maker being a good example: If we were PD, they could just 
> load all our stuff to have a nice basis and then simply outrun us in 
> terms of marketing, numbers of users, and so on.

This sounds like a classic PD/all-permissive vs copyleft retort and
I’m going to keep my answer to the above minimal.  It’s not about
popularity, market share, whatever.  It’s not about commercial use or
whatever other terms you might want to bring up.  It’s about freedom,
and making sure all users of derived works get the same freedoms.

> So if we allow the extraction of non-substantial amounts of data without 
> a share-alike license, e.g. we allow the OS to take five post boxes and 
> put them on a Land Ranger map without requesting the Land Ranger map to 
> fall under our license

They could take those five post boxes and put them on an interactive map
which adds extra information (that we may or may not want back in OSM,
it doesn’t matter) such as collection times, postal codes, sorting
office… I’d like _that_ to be free, not necessarily their whole map too
for that non‐substantial amount.  I’m willing to consider that it’s
unreasonable to expect that, but if I can make it free I will.

> So anything you contribute to OSM is free and will remain free, even if 
> others can also use it in a non-free context.

This requires that OSM stays (until it doesn’t matter because all data
is considered to be free), and I certainly hope it does, but that won’t
necessarily be the case.

If OS have those five post boxes after OSM sources spontaneously
combusted (clearly unlikely, but who knows?), I’d like them, please.

> So what you're saying is basically:
> 
> 1. You want full share-alike on every tiniest bit of information, 
> claiming that you (or the contributor) has intellectual property rights 
> to every bit.

[*] Yes.  If someone can get the right to keep data proprietary, I want
the right to make it free.  I’d much rather these “intellectual
property” rights (bad term[1]) become more reasonable (erring towards
freedom rather than restriction, shorter restrictive terms).

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty

> 2. You waive this share-alike provision for derived works if the 
> underlying database is shared (the T-Shirt designer can own his design 
> if he shares the underlying database, or if he has used OSM data 
> unaltered anyway).

Yes (and the t-shirt designer _always_ owns his design, derived or not,
he may just be bound by the terms of the licence of the data derived
from as to how he distributes it).

> In my eyes a lot of the elegance of the proposed new license lies in the 
> acknowledgment that facts are free anyway. To me, the existing license 
> has something un-ethical about it in claiming to have intellectual 
> property where none may exist.

I believe facts should be free, and the rights are exercised where they
exist to restrict (see [*] above).

> I have written about that on this list about 1.5 years ago, and I still 
> find the "Science Commons" quote in that article valid:
> 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-April/000302.html
> 
> You are now going down the very same road again: Let's just *claim* we 
> have intellectial property of every tiniest bit of information, and if 
> someone believes otherwise let them challenge us.

    "Our preference is that people do not overstate their copyright or
    other legal rights. Consequently, we adopt the position that "facts
    are free" and people should be educated so that they are aware of
    this."

Unfortunately, as much as I’d like facts to be free, not everyone else
believes that.  While people have the right to restrict, I’d like the
right to free, see [*].

I’m repeating myself now, I better go… :)

Simon
-- 
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/20081010/3198b190/attachment.pgp>