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

[Mr. Stace D Maples]

Thanks, Alex.

Clarity is exactly what is needed. Ambiguity = IRB Death. I'm going to be going through the OSM Licensing/Copyright Guidelines more closely over the next week and will comment outside this thread, if I have comments.

For the record, I hardly think solving things like diarrhoeal disease (2nd leading cause of death in children, globally) and tracking human rights abuses in repressive regimes are a 1% problems.

In F,L&T,
Stace Maples
Geospatial Manager
Stanford Geospatial Center
@mapninja
staceymaples at G+
Skype: stacey.maples
214.641.0920
Find GeoData: https://earthworks.stanford.edu<https://earthworks.stanford.edu/>
Get GeoHelp: https://gis.stanford.edu/

"I have a map of the United States... actual size.
It says, "Scale: 1 mile = 1 mile."
I spent last summer folding it."
-Steven Wright-

From: Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com<mailto:alex at mapbox.com>>
Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org<mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>>
Date: Monday, October 12, 2015 at 12:32 PM
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org<mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline


On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com<mailto:steve at asklater.com>> wrote:

On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com<mailto:alex at mapbox.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com<mailto:steve at asklater.com>> wrote:
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.

What's more interesting than sending people to HERE and TomTom is making them contributors to OpenStreetMap, no?

Absolutely, but at what cost?

OSM solved 95% or 99% of our problems. Should we fundamentally change OSM to claim the last 1% so someone can make slightly more money or complete an academic project? I don't think that's a worthwhile tradeoff. I'm super happy with the 99% we achieved already.

I'm very happy about what we have achieved too. I don't think we're solving 95% of our problems with OSM though.

"our problems" would of course need more definition and I'm running the risk here of misinterpreting what you said. I'm thinking about all the cases where OSM isn't used yet, all the mapping that isn't happing in OSM yet. OSM has the potential to fundamentally change how we capture and share knowledge about the world but we aren't anywhere near the full impact we should be having. 300,000 active mappers is impressive but the world is much bigger. At a time where the internet that was supposed to be Open is turning more and more into a closed game of big players and growth for OSM is linear - what's our plan? Fixing the license surely can't be the extent of our plan, but we need to be able to have a frank conversation about how licensing is hurting use cases and engagement on OSM, without second guessing people's intentions and without just showing them the door to TomTom and HERE. In that context I find comparing ODbL to Public Domain absolutely useful.

I think Stace's comments give a great glimpse into licensing pain points in the academic community in the US and the guideline Simon pulled together is going to fix some of the issues he's brought up. Having clarity how data linked to OSM does not extend the ODbL's share alike to that data should go a long way to address some of the concerns he raised.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20151012/b50406b6/attachment-0001.html>