[OSM-talk] OSMHQ (Open Street Map High Quality): Viable Alternative For The National Map Corps

Wed Sep 3 19:59:19 BST 2008

I'm not sure about OSM, but this is what people often say about the
GPL. That is because any software that uses or is built upon GPL
software must also be released under the GPL or a "GPL Compatible"
license.

I think the viral part of the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike
license is the "Share Alike" part. You can't take OSM, build something
on top of it, without sharing the improvements with others. In that
sense the OSM license "infects" the improvements and requires them to
be released under the same license. I think the viral language in the
GPL is a little stronger, however. If the share alike clause was viral
in that sense any map containing any OSM data at all would have to be
released under the same license, even if the other map data did not
come from OSM.

Does that make sense?

The Sunburned Surveyor

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Anselm Hook <anselm at gmail.com> wrote:
> osm has a viral license?
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Sunburned Surveyor
> <sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Of course, some surveyors may prefer that their work be under a
>> Copyleft license. That's fine, and I certainly wouldn't want to
>> discourage anyone from contributing directly to OSM in that case. But
>> if given a choice some would choose PD, please consider providing them
>> a workspace where such a choice isn't compromised."
>>
>> I'm not that familiar with the licensing issues related to OSM, but I
>> hope to become more familiar with them. As a result, I am hesitant to
>> comment on this. It sounds similar to the GPL versus LGPL debate that
>> goes on in the open source world. I'll subscribe to the OSM license
>> mailing list and post some more quesitons of mine there.
>>
>> Landon
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Nathan Vander Wilt
>> <nate-lists at calftrail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Nate,
>> >>
>> >> What data are you talking about? Do you mean the actual vector
>> >> geometry created as part of the mapping, or do you mean the extra
>> >> stuff, like the metadata and the photos?
>> >
>> >
>> > Not sure exactly what you're asking, but I see I was a bit unclear
>> > myself
>> > below.
>> >
>> > In my first paragraph, I was referring to all the data that is produced
>> > via
>> > federal money (e.g. USGS, NASA, Census Bureau, CIA, NOAA...) and is thus
>> > in
>> > the public domain. There's a lot of great US and world datasets from
>> > these
>> > agencies that have enabled, or at least got started, a lot of neat stuff
>> > because of the generous (non-)license Federal (and some state???) works
>> > are
>> > under.
>> >
>> > In my second paragraph, I was referring to the data that you hope to
>> > encourage Corps members to continue to collect. If they are willing to
>> > continue having their work placed in the public domain, it might be best
>> > to
>> > keep it totally separate from OSM. If surveyors start with public domain
>> > base maps such as TIGER, revised with their own GPS traces, there can be
>> > no
>> > questions as to whether they are a "derived work" of a virally licensed
>> > dataset like OSM. (See
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-May/025912.html for
>> > an
>> > example of the FUD spread on the idea of extracting PD data back out of
>> > OSM.)
>> >
>> > Of course, some surveyors may prefer that their work be under a Copyleft
>> > license. That's fine, and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone
>> > from contributing directly to OSM in that case. But if given a choice
>> > some
>> > would choose PD, please consider providing them a workspace where such a
>> > choice isn't compromised.
>> >
>> > Have you been able to get into contact with any now-restless surveyors?
>> > lf
>> > so, and you'd like assistance in the matter, I know there are at least a
>> > few
>> > others on this list of similar mind with regards to the licensing
>> > problems.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > -natevw
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Nathan Vander Wilt
>> >> <nate-lists at calftrail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Aug 19, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Note: This message will probably be of the most interset to OSM
>> >>>> mappers in the United States.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I was very disappointed in the recent shut down of the National Map
>> >>>> Corps. This shutdown prompted me to consider if OSM could be a viable
>> >>>> alternative to the former federally sponsored base mapping of the
>> >>>> United States. I started to put down some of my thoughts on paper. I
>> >>>> realized that it wouldn't take a great deal of changes to have OSM
>> >>>> fill this much needed role. I started to put together some
>> >>>> "suggested"
>> >>>> procedures and other ideas that would increase the quality of OSM
>> >>>> data
>> >>>> and allow it to provide "base map" layers for a traditional GIS. I'll
>> >>>> be trying out some of these ideas and procedures on a OSM mapping
>> >>>> project near my home in Stockton, California.
>> >>>
>> >>> Here in the US, we have the wonderful benefit of a great deal of
>> >>> public
>> >>> domain map data, because of federal sponsorships like that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Would it be possible, instead of putting this data directly into OSM,
>> >>> to
>> >>> set
>> >>> up a separate database/webserver/API stack for the collection of data
>> >>> under
>> >>> a public domain license? OSM could then certainly use this data, but
>> >>> the
>> >>> main database's "public domain-ness" would not be compromised by the
>> >>> viral
>> >>> license.
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks,
>> >>> -natevw
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
> --
> anselm 415 215 4856 http://hook.org http://makerlab.com http://meedan.net
>