[OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

[Tobias Knerr]

I apologize in advance for distracting everyone's attention from mapping
and other pleasures with a long mail about licenses. However, I have
begun to seriously doubt the decision to choose ODbL as the one future
OSM license, and believe we should have another look at the license that
will ultimately be used for the database published by OSMF.

In a nutshell:
The Contributor Terms give the OSMF the right to publish OSM data under
the terms of the CC-BY-SA. I suggest that the OSMF should use that
right, and *continue to publish the OSM database under CC-BY-SA* after
the end of the license change process.

So do I suggest to stop the license change process? No, I don't. The
Contributor Terms will solve many problems on their own, so my
suggestion is what could be labelled "CT + CC-BY-SA".

Do I suggest to abandon ODbL? No. Though I do not like ODbL very much, I
do not oppose making the OSM database available under that license. If
there are people who want to use OSM under ODbL terms - and I expect
there will be some - we can allow them to do so by dual licensing our
database.

But what I'm asking for is that we continue to offer fresh OSM data
under the most attractive license for many honest and productive users
of our data: CC-BY-SA.


Now for the details. In my opinion, CC-BY-SA has very desirable features:

* It is easy to comply with.
* It is popular and trusted.

Below, I will explain why - so if something doesn't seem instantly
obvious to you, read on. In addition, I will address the following
topics commonly discussed in the context of our license change:

* Collective attribution
* Compatibility with other licenses
* Future-Proofness
* Uncertainty and doubt
* Inadequate protection


* CC-BY-SA is easy to comply with. *

This is what I consider the most compelling benefit. After all, if it's
easy to work with OSM, then people will create cool stuff ("products",
"produced works").

With CC-BY-SA, you add a license note and attribution to your product
and you are done. All other effects are purely legal (letting people
copy and modify your work), and do not require any effort on your part.

ODbL expects you to do the same, but adds another, far more onerous
requirement: publishing derivative databases used in the creation of
your products. It is hard to understand what these are, and it is often
a challenge to distinguish them from produced works. Publishing the
derivative databases can be a significant burden when compared with
creation and distribution of the product itself. That's not a new
discovery, by the way, and that's why the license attempts to solve the
issue by letting you instead describe the process of reproducing the
derivative database. Unfortunately, that option is not clearly defined,
might not be possible with proprietary software, and can again be a
significant burden for any producer using OSM data.

* CC-BY-SA is popular and trusted. *

The Creative Commons brand is well-known. ODbL and OKF are not. CC's
popularity is for a large part due to its presence in art and popular
culture, which is something that a pure database license will never
fully achieve. The openness instantly associated with the CC licenses by
many is an important differentiator for OSM when it is compared with
closed competitors like Google Map Maker. People won't compare two walls
of legal text. But if they learn that OSM uses CC, they know we're the
good guys.

* Collective attribution *

We want to make sure that users of the data do not need to list all
individual contributors. Luckily, contributors now make data available
to the OSMF under terms that don't usually require attribution, and the
OSMF re-publishes it under an license requiring attribution. Therefore,
collective attribution should be safe with a CT + CC-BY-SA solution.

* Future-Proofness *

We want to be able to change the license in the future if the geodata
environment changes drastically. This is not related to ODbL, but a
feature of the CT.

* Uncertainty and Doubt *

Another reason frequently suggested for the switch to CT + ODbL is
making it easier for users of the data to know what they need to do in
order to conform to the license requirements. The first aspect is "who
do you ask if you aren't sure?" It has been suggested that introducing
the Contributor Terms makes it easier to get a useful response because
you no longer need to ask thousands of individuals for their
interpretations of the license, but this seems to be a property of the
CT, not of the ODbL.

As far as the licenses themselves are concerned, I observe that CC-BY-SA
seems to be /easier/ for people to interpret. Among the reasons for this
might again be the popularity of the licenses: CC-BY-SA images are used
by thousands of newspapers and websites, so I can just follow their
example when using OSM maps in a similar manner and will likely not get
it completely wrong. But it goes beyond that. The complexity of the ODbL
itself makes it hard to define what you need to do to comply, and we
have alreadly seen some indication of this when people asked what the
ODbL means in detail.

And, of course, choosing a dual licensing approach would let people pick
the license they are more comfortable with.

* Inadequate protection *

CC-BY-SA might not "work" for data. OSM data is not currently abused in
a manner that threatens the project, and that might never even happen.
Nevertheless, it seems wise to make sure that we can either prevent this
or at least react when it happens.

It is true that, by continuing to offer the database under CC-BY-SA, we
would no longer /preemptively/ address this potential issue. Making
contributors agree to the CT gives us the ability to react *if* legal
weaknesses of the CC-BY-SA are actually abused at some future point,
though, and I believe that this is sufficient.

* Conclusion *

The CC-BY-SA is popular, understandable and easy to implement for users
of our data. It does not build legal barriers that make using OSM much
harder than it strictly needs to be, which encourages people to use OSM
in creative, productive and unexpected ways. Continued publication of
the OSM database under CC-BY-SA will therefore help us fulfil our
project's mission, and can be implemented without disruption of the
ongoing licensing process.

-- Tobias Knerr