[OSM-talk] Results from license debate - assing (c) to OSMF

Robert (Jamie) Munro rjmunro at arjam.net
Tue Jul 17 16:37:41 BST 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steve Coast wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2007, at 14:56, 80n wrote:
> 
>> On 7/17/07, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Once that is done, Steve can send the e-mail to users and get the  
>> data
>>> transferred, and as far as I concerned the licensing /problems/ are
>>> over. (but that doesn't mean the debate is over!)
>> I think you're misinterpreting Steve's intentions here.
>>
>> What he wants to do is E-Mail the contributors and ask them to agree
>> that they will not be identified as the authors personally, but that
>> it is sufficient for users to attribute the data to "OpenStreetMap
>> Foundation" or something.
>>
>> It certainly wasn't clear to me what Steve's proposal was.  I think  
>> we need to give Steve the time to explain in detail what his  
>> proposal is.
>>
>> We shouldn't rely on an off-the-cuff remark that was made at the  
>> end of a debate and which referred to something (attribution) which  
>> was not even discussed much during the debate.
>>
>> Lets wait for an official announcement from Steve before  
>> speculation and rumour gets out of hand and generates another flame  
>> war.
> 
> :-)
> 
> My understanding was that there is confusion over whether you need to  
> attribute all 9,000 OSMers if you use the data, or OSMF, or  
> 'OpenStreetMap' or 'OpenStreetMap.org' or 'the OSM project'...... or  
> what? That is all I was trying to fix.
> 
> At the moment the signup page says you license your work under CC-BY- 
> SA, but not that you license it /to/ anyone.
> 
> So, really, planet.osm should attribute all 9,000 people as I  
> understand it. What I was trying to do was get a way so that people  
> using our data can just attribute something simple and not all 9,000  
> people. My intention when I picked the license 3 years ago was that  
> people would attribute OSM, not 9,000 people. It's a lot to list on a  
> map.
> 
> My understanding is that the simplest way to do this is to ask  
> everyone to grant rights to OSMF somehow to do this. I haven't fully  
> thought this through :-)
> 
> I'm not trying to be evil, I'm not trying to change the license, I'm  
> not trying to take rights away from people. I was trying to take one  
> step towards smoothing things out. If I got it wrong, fine. If it  
> won't work like this, fine.
> 
> I was hoping that we could start by taking some small steps like this.

The problem is that when we later want to allow FreeThePostcode/NPEMaps
to derive data but make the derived data Public domain, we can't do that
without mailing all 9000 contributors again, and getting them to agree
again. We then get a different subset of the data that FreeThePostcode
can use from the data that people can use and not attribute all authors,
and it just gets horrible.

I don't think we can ask the community twice, which means that we must
ask the community for all rights to go to the foundation, which means
that the majority of the community must trust the foundation, which
means that we need to make the foundation open and accountable, which
means we need to improve the web site for it (and not just mention the
foundation on the wiki).

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnOJDz+aYVHdncI0RAqRnAKDl5jKmiJE9CFAuKEKgCmvo3JnKawCfQAvG
7H+kyFQZEEBwWIBndksx2Sg=
=4DOm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the talk mailing list