[OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Nathan Vander Wilt
nate-lists at calftrail.com
Tue May 6 17:44:47 BST 2008
On May 3, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> For me, it seems ironic that a project spawned from licensing issues
> over map data has found itself in a situation where licensing issues
> are still a problem, and hopefully the license update will resolve
> these and make using OSM data easier. Why else are we contributing
> this data if not for people to *use* it?
This mirrors my feelings exactly. When I found out about this project,
I was really excited. I am writing a geotagging program that could
greatly benefit from a worldwide feature set, and it seemed like OSM
would be a great match. Now I'm not too sure. I live in the US, and
have seen the benefits of (and perhaps come to take for granted) a
significant body of Public Domain, free-as-in-WTFPL geographic
datasets. Obviously on the other side of the Atlantic, you have seen
the opposite: an overbearing monopoly that wants to keep this data
under lock and key.
Now what has been done to remedy that situation? I read things like
"but aha! that pub's location might be a derivative work of a
ShareAlike street!" and it sounds an awful lot how the OS claims
copyright in everything from the Soviet topo maps to random tourist
brochures. Except instead of insisting on big fees for use, it seems
some parts of the community instead insist on big "freedoms" resulting
from use.
How is that better? I'm worried that if my users geotag their photos
against OSM data, someone will come out of the woodwork insisting that
the photos "could be considered a derivative of their work", and I can
either hire a lawyer versed in International IP law [implying that
they wouldn't mind me ignoring what they really want done with their
data, provided it looked like I could get away with it]. Or I could
just play it safe and pass the virus to my (fleeing) users.
It doesn't hurt the US Census Bureau when someone takes their public
domain TIGER data and turns it into a proprietary product, or one with
an arguably more restrictive (or "more libre") licence. However, think
of how much less useful the TIGER data would have been to both these
"evil corporations" AND the open source community if data sets like
that had to be used under a particular license instead of public
domain (with attribution often requested).
I understand that some feel the cause would be hurt if their data
could ALSO be used in proprietary datasets. Obviously I have a
different opinion on this matter, as do several others. What bothers
me is that those in favor of viral licenses are able to even trump
those who would rather have their data in the public domain -- and
this by the same sort of "derivative work" FUD that makes a free set
of map data so important in the first place.
thanks,
-natevw
More information about the talk
mailing list