[OSM-legal-talk] Public Domain versus CC Attribution Share Alike License

[Nic Roets]

My opinion on a few things :

"There are some applications I just can't write with OSM. Particularly, I
can't write any application which interacts in a nontrivial way with
proprietry data."

Not true. You can write an application that reads data in OSM-XML format and
any other format and produce anything you like. The person who runs the
application must just be careful that he doesn't give the output to a 3rd
party. So OSM prohibits certain business models.

--
With PD we'll give away some of our rights, but we will significantly raise
the profile of the project. For example, if we can our high quality data
into Google Earth, we will draw many of their community members into our
project. (Many of them must be frustrated that they can't correct the errors
made by other members). Even if there's nothing in Google Earth that says
(C) OSM, that fact that OSM is the source will leak out soon enough.

--
OSMF should proactively alter their terms and conditions. They should state
therein that users who continue to use the service renounce their rights to
individual attribution. They should also require users to give OSMF a
non-exclusive license to redistribute the their data in whatever manner the
OSMF sees fit.

This will test support for whatever new license we may want to adopt.

Regards,
Nic

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Sunburned Surveyor <
sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com> wrote:

> I seemed to have immersed myself in the depths of a healthy debate for
> which I was not prepared. I don't yet have a full understanding of all
> the issues, but I think some statements of Richard give a nice
> summary:
>
> "Yes, the new licence fixes 1 and 3. It also goes a long way to
> defining what is permissible under 2 in such a way that is likely to
> be acceptable to the largest number of people.
>
> A public domain-style licence could of course "fix" everything, but
> the community ain't gonna agree on it (see legal-talk passim ad
> infinitum), and OSM is all about the art of the possible."
>
> It seems like Joseph and some others are proponets of a putting OSM
> data in the public domain. While I can understand this as the
> "cleanest" or most "string free" solution, I think it may
> underestimate the potential for corporate abuse. There are a lot of
> people out there willing to leech of a community like OSM without
> making any positive contributions. It happens in the software world a
> lot.
>
> Disclaimer: I"m one of those people who have yet to make significant
> contributions to OSM, so I don't get to have an opinion yet. :]
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Iván Sánchez Ortega
> <ivan at sanchezortega.es> wrote:
> > El Jueves, 4 de Septiembre de 2008, Joseph Gentle escribió:
> >> [...] There's a bunch of ways even
> >> pretty reasonable uses of OSM could leave you legally liable:
> >> - You don't acknowledge _everyone_
> >
> > The CC-by-sa explicitly says that you have to contribute the authors in a
> > reasonable way. There is absolutely no problem if you don't acknowledge
> > everyone.
> >
> >> - You don't share-alike the whole webpage your map is embedded in, or
> the
> >> book in which the map exists.
> >
> > Again, derivative work vs. collective work. No problems here either.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > ----------------------------------
> > Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
> >
> > For Sys Admins paranoia isn't a mental health problem, its a marketable
> job
> > skill.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20080904/e1e1fb9c/attachment.html>