[OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Tom Lee]

Allow me to gently suggest that we try to keep this thread grounded in
concrete concerns. I am always up for some flag-waving about sharealike
versus PD, but I think it would be best housed in a new thread or the talk
list (it's a general enough principle that the larger community deserves to
weigh in if it's to be revisited).

Stace has pointed to specific use cases that I suspect many of us would
like OSM to support--academic research subject to temporary embargo and
scenarios with serious privacy limitations--and to the current lack of
guidance being a stumbling block.

Stace, do you feel the guideline under consideration would address the kind
of roadblocks you've referenced?


On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

> I designed a license concept that’s relevant as an alternative way of
> thinking about this:
>
> http://stevecoast.com/2015/09/30/license-ascent/
>
> On a different note: It’s a false dichotomy to compare OSM and Public
> Domain, it’s really about comparing buying a proprietary map (which the OP
> didn’t mention that I saw) and OSM. If you want all these rights, you can
> just pick up the phone and pay HERE or TomTom for them, they’d love to hear
> from you. From that standpoint OSM looks wonderful of course.
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Mr. Stace D Maples <
> stacemaples at stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> One other question, and I’m just curious, not trying to start a flame
>> war. Isn’t some of the data in OSM from public domain datasets? If so, what
>> is the OSM rationale for placing a more restrictive licensing model on that
>> data?
>>
>
> Well, this issue is actually a "religious" war most commonly known as the
> BSD vs. GPL debate.
>
> Personally, I take issue with your statement that ODbL is a "more
> restrictive" license than public domain. It all depends on your definition
> of "restrictive" vis-a-vis "freedom". Public domain or CC-BY-style
> licensing (aka BSD style) does provide the immediate user with a lot more
> rights than a share-alike license like ODbL or CC-BY-SA (aka GPL style).
> However, those rights are only guaranteed for the immediate user. The
> immediate user can add his own improvements to it and then make those
> improvements proprietary—a usage right that's allowed. Unfortunately, other
> users cannot make use of those improvements.
>
> On the other hand, a share-alike license aims to be a more sustainable
> model. It restricts the immediate user on only one aspect: the right to
> make a share-alike content/data/IP proprietary is explicitly disallowed.
> This ensures that any improvements are shared back to the community, unlike
> with the BSD-style licensing.
>
> For me, share-alike licensing for OSM data is a net positive. This
> licensing ensures that nobody can take the data, improve it to make it even
> more valuable and then make it proprietary.
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20151009/7e8a0890/attachment-0001.html>