[OSM-talk] What is there to be won by having a License

ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.gremmen at cetest.nl
Mon Dec 7 06:59:30 GMT 2009


Let's start that after some thorough reading of this list

and being an OSMF member I have voted in favor of the ODBL

license.

Not that I am in favor of this License, but because it is less bad

then the CC-by-SA license.

 

I am in favor of no license at all.

 

Public data should be public to anyone, without any restriction.

I do not see any drawbacks for OSM in that model.

 

I still have to see the advantage of having a license at all.

Until now it has been a very disturbing factor in OSM, as

*substantial* efforts have gone into this discussion, there

is a large risk of losing substantial parts of captured data,

and we are risking several fork projects.

All positive energy that would should have improved our maps instead.

 

I understand that we cannot change CCbySA into the  free domain anymore,

and trying to do so that would probably create similar effects as

the current situation.

 

But we started using *a* License, and that was wrong from

the beginning. Especially there is nothing to be won by

having and maintaining a License.

We just (partially) joined this world of lawyers, justice and 

businesses models based on legal actions we all (?) disgust .

 

Gert Gremmen

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

Van: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org] Namens Anthony
Verzonden: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:36 AM
Aan: Richard Fairhurst
CC: talk at openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL

 

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
wrote:

	I don't think you have at all answered the points in that, and
therefore
	I stand by the viewpoint that in Australia, ODbL has the best
chance of
	any open, non-clickwrap licence of protecting OSM's data.


Which is to say, none at all?  You compare the ODbL to licenses offered
by Tele Atlas, and Navteq, and Google, but there's a key difference with
these licenses.  They don't allow redistribution, or only allow limited
redistribution.  The main way they protect against people taking their
databases is by not letting anyone download their complete raw database
(or letting only a select few highly trustworthy organizations have
access to the complete raw database).

What's to stop someone from setting up a mirror of the OSM database and
not putting a TOS on their website?  I believe the answer is that not
only is there nothing to stop them, but people are encouraged to do so.
Now, when I download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds
me to the ODbL?  Absolutely nothing.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091207/06d4ef89/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5310 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091207/06d4ef89/attachment.gif>


More information about the talk mailing list