[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSMContributor Terms

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

>>> NearMap is the only company I'm aware of attempting to hold a lot of data
>>> hostage in this way. We all have our different opinions on the license,
>
> This is just silly.  In what way are NearMap attempting to "hold a lot of
> data hostage".  They have allowed the OSM community to trace from their
> imagery under the licence terms which OSM had in force. OSM want to change
> the licence, and NearMap have said the new CT's are not acceptable to them.
> That's not NearMap's fault.  Its the fault of the way the CT's are drafted.
> NearMap haven't changed their stance in any way

I agree entirely. If there is any 'uncool' party here, I believe it is
OSMF / LWG for wanting to retrospectively change the terms under which
data was supplied (from ones that guarantee attribution and
share-alike clauses to ones that only guarantee a "free and open"
license) and expecting everyone to agree. IMO, there's an underlying
problem with the proposed CTs, in that they appear to have been
drafted to protect the interests of OSMF without enough thought for
the concerns of those supplying or contributing data. Whether this is
the fault of the lawyers, or those who instructed them, a lack of
proper review, or just genuinely unforeseen consequences of the terms,
I don't know.

I doubt NearMap is or will be the only company / organisation /
individual that will have a problem with the broad nature of the
rights required by the proposed CTs. For example, I sincerely doubt
that Ordnance Survey would even contemplate agreeing to them for the
OS OpenData products. Indeed from my contact with them, they are weary
even about the lack of attribution requirements in produced works
under ODbL. Getting OS just to agree to ODbL+DbCL will be a major
effort I think.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker