[Osmf-talk] Contributor Agreement is Dual Licensing

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Sun Dec 13 07:46:25 UTC 2009


On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> > Couldn't instead the contributors put the data under ODbL and not
> > grant the Foundation any additional rights?  It seems like this would
> > solve a couple of problems and would be logically a single step rather
> > than the two steps the current update plan is trying to make.
>
> I think this was something the LWG discussed in length in the early
> stages, and there are some reasons why this would not work. I'll let
> them summarise.
>
> The main reason, I think, is that what you (the individual contributor)
> have is not necessarily a database (think of someone just making a few
> fixes to road names or so). Thus the ODbL is unsuitable for licensing
> it. And even if it were, this would then mean that OSMF have to
> attribute every single contributor...


Since about 90% of OSM data is contributed by 10% of the users this seems to
accommodate the majority of users but the minority of contributions.

The content provided by most major contributors, and every bulk import,
would certainly be sufficient to constitute a database.  There's definitely
a strong case that some alternative to the Contributor Terms is needed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091213/77ba06fe/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list