[OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Thu Oct 30 20:30:40 UTC 2014

Hash: SHA1

On 30/10/14 12:51 PM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Share Alike is the expression for fear of abuse.

Share-Alike is a weaker description of copyleft.

Copyleft is a strategy used to ensure the freedom of all users of a
resource, rather than simply the first to grab it.

> In my mind there cant be any abuse of OSM data.

There can however be a failure to respect that freedom.

> I want the OSM Data to be available everywhere and anyone.

That requires copyleft, as otherwise people can make that data part of
a system that denies other people the freedom they exercised in making it.

> And it needs to be a no brainer which it isnt right now.

It already was with BY-SA. It was made even more of a no brainer with
the switch from BY-SA to OSM.

> For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a 
> commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a
> licensing issue.

If we add up the cost of all the time company representatives have
spent trying to get OSM to change its licensing *a second time*, it
would have been a lot cheaper for them to get together and just hire a
lawyer who knew what they were doing.

> ANY restriction is a problem for adoption as one can see e.g. from 
> the discussion about geocoding data.

There is no problem with geocoding, the quantitative part of the ODbL
covers this and there is no need for any qualitative redefinitions.

There is however a very obvious potential problem with people
extracting substantial parts of the database via "geocoding" and then
saying they aren't covered by the derivatives part of the license
because "geocoding".

- - Rob.

Version: GnuPG v1


More information about the legal-talk mailing list