[Openstreetmap] The bigger picture

Immanuel Scholz immanuel.scholz at gmx.de
Tue Feb 14 16:11:40 GMT 2006


Hi,

> The map is clearly a derived work from the geodata.

Yes. This is good.


> By clarifying ShareAlike in this way, we get easy funding for OSM without
> any loss to the project aims. (And yes, I'm volunteering to do the work.)

I forbid you to do this with the data I contributed (which counts nothing,
since I only contributed a few nodes so far ;).


> The second is something that was mentioned earlier (can't remember by who,
> sorry). It'd be great to do a Google Maps-compatible API using OSM data -
> a really superb advert for free geodata.

Although I don't use Google Maps (haven't looked at it yet), this could
get us many new people. :-) Good idea.


> At present, if we were to do that, the entire contents of any site using
> that API could be deemed a derivative work under CC-BY-SA; so you've got
> to make sure that every single piece of data on your site can be
> relicenced under ShareAlike, even assuming you want to.

Well, I don't know whether OSM can claim that. Parts of the site that
don't have to do anything with the map are not derrived work to my eyes.
But you may be right.


> And it wouldn't be so great to have a "free" API that you could actually
> use in fewer situations than the proprietary one.
...
> And the third is that, by removing limitations on the ways in which
> OSM-derived maps can appear, we make it more likely that these maps will
> be produced.

That is the same argument that people uses to support BSD-like licenses in
favour of GPL. I don't share their opinions.

To rant a bit (dunno who of the big GNU-guys first said that):
"I won't buy publicity by giving up freedom."

And my opinion is, that I give up freedom when allowing properitar
derrived works from my work. Period - no disussion here possible.


> The other part of CC-BY-SA is Attribution, and I would love to see printed
> maps springing up here, there and everywhere with little OSM logos, saying
> "go to openstreetmap.org to find out how to help".

My personal opinion is, that the -BY- part of CC is a disadvantage. I
don't like forcing people to attribute someone else. (This is the reason I
don't like FDL)

However, maybe it is a needed part for legal reasons (there is no CC2.0-no
attribution version anymore..) or maybe other people like it beeing
attributed so much.. well, I can live with that..


> What I'm suggesting isn't anything new.

Yes. I think, similar discussions can be found by googling after "BSD vs.
GPL"


To make my point clear:

I don't see OSM as a platform to provide companies cheap input for their
commercial, proprietary applications. (And "company" is not relative to
me. There is no "xxx Euro" threshold possible. If OSM itself make
commercial use of its own data, OSM is a company.)

Any derrived work from any geodata retrieved from OSM must be licensed
under the same license OSM is. CC-BY-SA is widely accepted and many people
don't have a problem with licensing their stuff under this (as is GPL).


Ciao, Imi.






More information about the talk mailing list