[OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

Alex Barth alex at mapbox.com
Fri Mar 1 19:26:00 UTC 2013


Rob, I could only follow your line of argument if OSM was a project that is
trying to compete in the same market as a potential commercial player that
is marketing an OSM + proprietary data mix. As OSM isn't, it has a bigger
benefit from allowing liberal use.


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:51:18 -0500, Alex Barth wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:
>>
>>
>>  despite the economic irrationality of this
>>>
>>
>> It _is_ economically rational to contribute to OSM even if there
>> wasn't a share alike license.
>>
>
> It's economically rational to keep costs down until VC funding is
> available.
>
>
>  This is the point of the matter and where we miss each other.
>>
>> It's economically more than rational to contribute to a
>> non-share-alike OSM (or other open source/data projects). On the flip
>> side share-alike introduces complexities that clearly disincentivize
>> contributing.
>>
>
> But as I stated, contributing is not the point.
>
> Using what is contributed is.
>
> Corporate moral panics don't change this.
>
>
> - Rob.
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/legal-talk<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20130301/3a6585d2/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list