[OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL

Kate Chapman kate at maploser.com
Wed Jan 16 12:19:34 GMT 2013


Hi Martin,

I appreciate the sentiment, though I think it have unintended consequences.

The reason I am asking the questions I'm asking is as part of a
greater effort to advocate within humanitarian groups to release their
data under licenses compatible to OSM. Often the issue with data after
a disaster is that it is locked up and can't be reached in times of
emergency. For example there actually was a map of Haiti after the
earthquake. The office of the National Mapping Agency had collapsed
and where the back-up of the data was not immediately known. One of
the reasons for this is they had a long policy of selling that data,
but nobody was actually buying it.

It is also a slippery slope to make exceptions because then maybe
there are other exceptions that groups would like to make. For example
I could see some groups not wanting OSM used by the military or maybe
large corporations. It is unrealistic though to make these types of
distinctions I think.

Thanks,

-Kate

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/1/15 Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com>:
>> Hard to say if it would be substantial, I think that is going to
>> depend on the size of the disaster and what exactly the data is being
>> used.
>
>
> I think with the current guidelines any extraction will be very soon
> substantial, "The OSM community regards the following as being not
> Substantial ... provided that the extraction is one-off and not
> repeated over time for the same or a similar project."
>
> Especially the part "not repeated over time for the same or a similar
> project" will be read that if you extract a second time hospitals or
> schools the amount would add to the number from the first time you did
> so.
>
> This is very sad, I'm sure almost all contributors to OSM would like
> to not have these restrictions for certain scopes (like HOT). What if
> we made a change to our license to have different terms for different
> fields of users? (Or is this completely unrealistic?). E.g. we could
> release data for humanitarian work under attribution only (after
> positive voting by the active contributors) terms?
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



More information about the legal-talk mailing list