[Osmf-talk] CC-BY-SA "too strong" ?

Matija Nalis mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr
Thu Dec 10 07:50:15 UTC 2009


One of the issues raised on why CC-BY-SA should be changed is that not only
can it be interpreted as effectively public domain (as one extreme), but
that it also can be interpreted as too hard - that is requiring that on each
use you must mention ALL the hundreds of thousands of contributors
individually (BY clause) and that for example the whole TV programme in
which the map appear must also be made free (SA clause).

While the former problem (the CC-BY-SA being too weak in some jurisdictions)
does not worry me that much (although I would prefere copyleft license), the
later problem (CC-BY-SA being too obnoxius) is IMHO much bigger problem
(which goes agains the OSM fundamentals, which is making map that anyone can
use without legal and technical obstacles)

The argument than goes to say that CC-BY-SA is great for art or for
Wikipedia, but not for OSM.

Which is what triggered this post. While I can understand it would work for
art (which usually have one or a few artist), I think Wikipedia would be in
pretty much same situation as OSM (or worse): as a whole, it has about 11
million editors (hundred and fifty thousand of whom has been doing editing
in last month), and even individual pages will have hundreds of contributors
(some extreme cases, like "George W. Bush" page, have more than 14 thousands
editors).

Yet, it seems that wikipedia does not suffer from CC-BY-SA as it is claimed
OSM does. That is, the data from it regularily gets copied, and attributing
goes just to Wikipedia, not all individual contributors. Also the fact that
data from Wikipedia gets included does not seem to make all surrounding work
become CC-BY-SA.

My question would be, why is that so ? What is that fundamental difference
between OSM and Wikipedia which makes CC-BY-SA works for one but not the
other ?

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list