[OSM-talk] The long tail - lowest common denominator

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemeD.net
Fri Jul 7 09:05:32 BST 2006


If we're going to talk privacy policy and licences, I guess it might be 
an idea to establish what we all believe in - what we all believe OSM 
should be.

Here's a brief list of "project aims and shared beliefs" as I see it, 
in an attempt to find a bottom line we can all sign up to. If we agree, 
we can go on to debate anything over and above this. Some of you may 
recognise the first few points...

== Things we can all agree on ==

1. The freedom for anyone to use OSM geodata for any purpose [=FSF 
"freedom 0"]
2. The freedom for anyone to access OSM geodata "source" (e.g. 
planet.osm or a db dump, subject to any privacy concerns) [=FSF 
"freedom 1"]
3. The freedom to redistribute copies of OSM geodata [=FSF "freedom 2"]
4. The freedom to add your own material to OSM geodata, and if you 
like, to release this to the public [=FSF "freedom 3"]

== Things we can maybe agree on? ==

5. You can charge money for products using OSM geodata as long as the 
licence terms are satisfied. [=not CC-NC]
6. You can superimpose a "layer" or "mashup" on top of OSM geodata with 
no restrictions on the licence of the other layer/mashup data. [=Imi's 
"I created a layer..." in the Legal FAQ]
7. OSM/OSMF exists to provide and promote geodata licensed according to 
(...the terms we settle on). It doesn't exist to promote that ideology 
in a wider context. [By which I mean: even if we settle on a CC 
licence, we're not here to advocate CC-ness in general. Same goes if we 
settle on PD or a GNU licence or something with ninjas in it.]
8. OSM's licence should, in general, aim to be more liberal/permissive 
than the copyright laws of the countries in which it operates.
9. The licence should be as unambiguous as possible, to avoid lawyer 
troubles.

Is this about right or have I missed the point? Yell if you have 
problems with any of the above.

(As yet I don't think we're looking for "yes but"s... additional 
requirements can come later.)

I've expressly avoided using the word "free" because it _may_ mean 
different things to different people. I've written this with no thought 
as to whether the end result will be CC-By-SA, something GNUish, public 
domain, or an entirely new licence.

(BTW, worth noting that not all our aims have to be achieved through a 
licence. Licences are great for forbidding things - "thou shalt not". 
But when we want to say "we shall", we could also consider using the 
aims of the OSM Foundation. Charitable aims are legally binding in the 
UK and I guess in some other countries.)

cheers
Richard

P.S. NickB - seconded, Imi - good to have you back, Steve - congrats 
for being brave enough to answer all this openly and honestly. Dammit, 
we're all so _nice_. ;)





More information about the talk mailing list