[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