[Talk-ca] why is OdbL needed for OpenStreetMap?

Gregory nomoregrapes at googlemail.com
Sun Aug 1 16:19:55 BST 2010


I didn't see any messages before this, so forgive me if I've missed a
thread. Also, this comes attached with the "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer.

Why is ODbL need for OpenStreetMap?
CC-BY-SA is a copyright license for an original work. Something like the
content of a book, or a painting. It is not legally suitable for a
collection of information, a database, which can be used to make many
differing works (like an image, a routing program). If a bad person used OSM
against the ccy-by-sa rules and we took them to court (because law is known
when you get the first 'test case') they might say, well cc-by-sa isn't
about the database anyway and I didn't copy you're image.
We should make it clear to users: ODbL is a license made by lawyers that is
suitable for a database, the license rules (along with the contributor terms
that are part of it) make it 'legally ground'* but keep the meaning of
CC-BY-SA. You could say the change is a technicality, a legal one.

Why CC-BY-SA, or the database equivalent, is needed for OSM?
CC = Creative Commons, just the group and name of the legal document.
BY = Attribution Required. So anywhere OSM is used, people can know it is
OSM, find out about it, and know OSM is great. It gives our work credit. As
Sam said, some data we can import requires this, because they want their
work to get credit (via the wiki page of OSM imports/contributors) and
similar reasons.
SA = Share Alike. If you use OSM, and make changes (for example add
locations of your restaurant chain), then OSM should benefit because you
needed the road network(or surrounding POIs) we drew to know where your
restaurants were. Also, if you run off and make money from your OSM+famous
homes map, we should be able to print such a map (and maybe sell it too).

Some people argue that OSM should have been PD(Public Domain) from the
start, and should be now. This means no rules. This takes away the credit
and promotion that BY gives. It also takes away SA and the need to give back
to OSM. Anything that is PD we can use in OSM CC-BY-SA or ODbL. But OSM can
not be used in a PD project because it's not sharing alike (in the same way,
under the same terms) and it doesn't make sure OSM is attributed.

Some people argue the opposite direction and think OSM should be
CC-BY-SA-NC.
NC = Non-commercial means you can't use it to make money. You could sell a
map for the cost of printing it, but you couldn't make that a bit more to
round it up. With OSM you can make money from it, but the SA ensures that
anyone else could make the same products and maybe make it cheaper. You
could write a copyrighted book, but you could not include OSM map images in
it. Some people make money from OSM and give a percentage or all profits to
the foundation. With NC we would not have start up companies like Cloudmade
or Geofrabrik who further the OSM and put in money and/or time to support
aspects of OSM.
With NC data we cannot import it into OSM because we let people make money
from good ideas. OSM CC-BY-SA can be used in a CC-BY-SA-NC project because
it is essentially the same, but with extra restrictions.

So there are these other licenses that you may feel you want OSM to be, they
relate to different ideas of freedom or for-the-greater-good. But for now
you should continue to support OpenStreetMap and the principles it has gone
with, support the change to ODbL so it can continue along this path but
stand high on a stronger legal ground* and avoid someone challenging that
you can do whatever you want because CC-BY-SA doesn't make sense on data.

*Legally ground, again it will never be known for sure until it a test case
in court. But we hope to avoid that by telling them how many lawyers wrote
the words.


On 30 July 2010 11:13, Sam Vekemans <acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com> wrote:

> OdbL is needed for OpenStreetMap because, sinple put, not all
> datatsets that are out their are made available in the public domain.
> if all datasets were already made available i the public domain, there
> there would be no need to try to 'protect' the data.
>
>
> this 'protection of data' is a safeguard medium, so then it ensures
> that it doesnt get mixed in with other datatsets, that ot make their
> data avaialbe back to the end users.
>
>
> so essentially, odbl is needed so that for all datasets that are use t
> enhance the map, the osm data, in turn, can be used to enhance the
> sours ttset, (where the origional daa came from) to make it beter.
>
>
> so in other words, the reason we need to have  odbl licence, is to
> ensure that the gis data remains sitting on a 2-way street.
>
>
> so for natural resources canada, because we are allowed to use the
> data, we can give back changes that are made, so then the source
> dataset can be improved. and in turn, we get even more quality data,
> as itbecomes a perpedual. make sence?
>
> --
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/
> http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> Skype: samvekemans
> IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room)
> @Acrosscanadatrails
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
Gregory
osm at livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20100801/b40d1c4e/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-ca mailing list