[OSM-talk] Survey: How to pay the OSM bill

Chris Fleming me at chrisfleming.org
Thu Jul 12 17:22:11 BST 2007

Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> Abigail Brady wrote:
>> On 7/11/07, *Robert (Jamie) Munro* <rjmunro at arjam.net
>> <mailto:rjmunro at arjam.net>> wrote:
>>     I don't want to restrict the data any more than it already is. I just
>>     want to open it up for the foundation to license in other ways - e.g. a
>>     company that wants to use our map as a base with it's data, but doesn't
>>     want to make it's data CC-by-sa.
>> You said
>>> The main way I can see the foundation making enough money to employ
>>> people would be to sell the data for commercial use, but still allow it
>>> to be used for non-commercial use for free.
>> Saying "still allowing it to be used for non-commercial use for free"
>> rather than, say "still allowing it to be used under cc-by-sa for anyone
>> willing to accept those terms" implies changing the regular license to
>> be an -nc- one.  Perhaps you didn't mean this implication?
> Yes, sorry, I was getting a bit confused. I was thinking OSM had a CC
> non-commercial license. I still think people might like to pay to use
> the data under another license. E.g. to use printed maps in a book
> without worrying about Share Aliking the rest of the book.
But this is exactly what people don't want to happen.  The share alike 
component means that if you use my mapping to make your book then you 
have to make your book available in the same way that the mapping was 
(or possibly the maps in your book). Effectively this protects people's 
data from being used commercially without consequence and encourages 
commercial company's that want to use the data to feed back. Licensing a 
company to use our data without having to share alike is a bad thing and 
effectively an own goal for free mapping.

I do have some problems with the CC-Share-Alike for mapping. To start 
with  the CC licenses are designed around "creative works" i.e. the 
final map and not the data making up the map. I would like a Data CC 
equivalent that is less about the final map and more the data going into 
the map. So if Bob uses OSM data + some other stuff that OSM doesn't 
have to produce his map, rather than having to share the final map  (or 
as well) should he share the underlying mapping data? (or do you provide 
a choice, either the final map OR the underlying data...)  Ultimately a 
list of lat's and long's is more valuable to the project than a pdf of a 



More information about the talk mailing list