[Osmf-talk] Share Alike images

Henk Hoff henk at toffehoff.nl
Mon Dec 7 23:21:40 UTC 2009

That's right. We're talking about a license that is best for OSM as a
project and not about a license that's best for the individual

Within OSM we are with a great group of people how are all advocates of free
data. However, there are still a lot of people in the world outside OSM who
are even more evil than the evil-ist person here! To protect the goals of
the OSM-project (creating free maps) a Share-Alike clause is very important.

The Share-Alike clause is a simple we-all-benefite. It's *only* a
restriction when you want to modify the data (e.g. to make it more accurate)
and want to release that modified database under a closed license.

A viral open license is good for OSM as a whole. It's open (jippie!) and it
starts a discussion with organizations/persons (who want to use OSM data) to
open up their own data (otherwise they cannot make a derivative database).
Ergo, it is a perfect way of achieving one big open map.

If you as an individual mapper consider your contributions PD: excellent.
OSM will guarantee you that your contributions will be openly available and
it can be used to free up other closed data.  It sounds almost like Amnesty
International for geodata ....

About SA on images: the SA within ODbL is on the data. If you publish an
image made from a derivative database, you're also bound to publish the
derivative database under an open licences (4.4c). So the image may have
whatever license you want, the data will be free.


2009/12/7 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>

you will find that we had a small number of very outspoken share-alike
> advocates on the lists who, coming from a strong ideological background,
> used phrases like: "This doesn't contribute to the domain of freedom
> that OSM wants to expand." - for many, OSM seemed to be but one puzzle
> piece in creating a "freer" world, and they had to be reminded (by Y.T.)
> that OSM's mission is not creating a free world, but free maps.
> I think that the license working group has found the best share-alike
> license that we could use, and that they have done this job diligently
> and based on facts and lots of consultation. The initial premise, namely
> that it must be a share-alike license and nothing else will do, however
> has never been properly tested and is simply a "policy" or "ideology"
> issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091208/ca3457f9/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list