[Osmf-talk] Contributor Agreement is Dual Licensing
frederik at remote.org
Mon Dec 14 00:55:09 UTC 2009
Gervase Markham wrote:
> How is the ODbL better than PD (or PD-attribution) in terms of allowing
> us to use data from other people?
I don't think the general motivation for share-alike is that you want to
be able to gobble up into your database whatever other people add. You
just want it to be free for everyone to use!
Anyone could set up a database where he imports all of OpenStreetMap
*plus* every OSM derived database anyone has ever made.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the contributor agreement is
only used inside OSM; if anyone is ever unhappy with that, they can
simply create a derived database by loading the full OSM database into
their system and not be constrained by the contributor agreement any more
>> they prevent other ODbL datasets from being added to OSM. i, personally,
>> don't think this is a bad thing. instead of hunting for datasets to
>> import, maybe it would be better to go out mapping?
> You may not think this is a bad thing, but it seems that rather a lot of
> people on this mailing list do.
I am starting to be anti-import as well. If there are other datasources,
let us link to them instead of becoming the bitrot centre of the world.
But the question is rather academic anyway since there are unlikely to
be other ODbL licensed data sources.
> The position seems to have changed from "if we go to ODbL rather than
> PD, we preserve share-alike" to "actually, we don't, but share-alike's
> not important anyway. Go get all the data again! It won't take long."
I thought you were talking about problems when re-incorporating
downstream additions into OSM. What has that got to do with having to
get data *again*?
> Why are we not using a scheme, used by most open source projects, where
> every user of the software/data gets a licence from each contributor?
> Why do we need this intermediating third party?
We have established - well 80n has challenged that in his post this
morning but I still maintain that it is correct - that most OSM
contributors have nothing that can be protected. Not by copyright
because it is factual, and not by database law because it is not a
database. Why, as a user of OSM data, would I *have* to get a license
from some contributor?
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the osmf-talk