[OSM-talk] open data

Etienne 80n80n at gmail.com
Wed Sep 20 11:53:48 BST 2006


On 9/20/06, Andy Robinson <Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I'm in support of Richard's arguments and Steve's summary that OSM and
> other
> open source data providers do not currently have an appropriate licence
> for
> data (as distinct from software and art creativity).
>
> It became evidently clear in a discussion with a gentleman from the OS a
> few
> days back that OSM's current licence is restricting the sort of potential
> that might come with working with other organisations to enhance and
> expand
> the usefulness of OSM data.
>
> Don't be fooled in any way. OSM data is of course of great interest to
> many
> organisations, although its immaturity at this stage of the proceedings
> will
> limit its real-world use by any organisation for a long time to come. But
> it
> can and should work the other way too. For instance the OS would benefit
> greatly if OSMers contributed data from the countryside to keep their maps
> up to date. The OS does not have sufficient surveyor capacity anymore to
> go
> out and gather some of the data needed to keep footpath maps up to date
> for
> instance.


This sounds to me like the OS is feeling threatened.  We are making
amazingly good progress in mapping the UK.  In my recent travels across the
south of England I have found it surprisingly hard to pick roads that
haven't already been mapped.  I see all around me places where people are
starting to have a go at mapping in detail.  These places are soon going to
start to join up.  Compared to a year ago the progress is awesome.

It is very telling that an organisation with £100m in annual trading revenue
doesn't have the resources to do what it was originally commissioned to do.

I'm beginning to think they need us more than we need them...

I'm not for one minute trying to suggest that OSM should be doing the OS's
> work for free. What I am suggesting is that with organisations like the OS
> involved in OSM and contributing something to it, financial support or
> free
> data into the OSM pot for instance, then we have something of value to
> everyone.


What I think you are saying is that if we change our license so that they
can used it without the share alike constraints (and maybe without the
attribution constraint) then they would donate money to OSM.

The problem with weakening the license is that you can't put the genie back
in the bottle.  Once it is done, it is done.  There is no going back.

If the OSM project were failing under the current license regime then yes it
would be time to change it.  If we had no other source of funding except OS
then yes we should consider this.

At the moment the answer to both these questions appears to be no.  We are
being remarkably successful with the current license.  And we are getting
some money coming in (not a lot, but enough for now).


Under the current OSM licence there is no realistic opportunity for the OS
> to get involved as a partner with OSM. I believe we need to change that
> since in my view we are not about creating a stand alone object. OSM data
> should be working within the established cartography industry as much as
> it
> works outside it with new "cartographers" creating new and exciting maps.
>
> At the moment, the OSM data feels as shacked as the commercial proprietary
> data that sits out there. The only difference is that we have opened the
> gate to enable access for free. It does not necessarily give us greater
> freedom to do interesting things with that data.



Organisations like the OS need to be encouraged to contribute data or
> financial support to open source data projects like OSM. As I see it the
> current licence restricts the ability to mix and match from different data
> sources to be creative without tarring everything, and everything beyond
> it
> in perpetuity, with the OSM licence.
>
> Is that what open geodata is about, making sure that the name OSM
> proliferates through everything. I think not.
>
> Hopefully I have not offended to many of my fellow OSM'ers in this
> post.  I
> appreciate these are contentious issues for many.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>
> Andy Robinson
> Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
> >bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of SteveC
> >Sent: 20 September 2006 6:47 AM
> >To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: [OSM-talk] open data
> >
> >Far be it for me to start a license war, but this might be an
> >interesting read:
> >
> >http://www.systemed.net/blog/entry060919233313.html
> >
> >have fun,
> >
> >SteveC steve at asklater.com http://www.asklater.com/steve/
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >talk mailing list
> >talk at openstreetmap.org
> >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/450 - Release Date:
> 18/09/2006
> >
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/450 - Release Date: 18/09/2006
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20060920/1bc46125/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list