[OSM-talk] License plan

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Fri Feb 27 16:51:03 GMT 2009


Ben Laenen wrote:
> I care about whether the database will still 
> be "clean" after a possible change (meaning, properly licensed).

The current license is anything but "properly licensed".

If you take a *strict* view then we're all violating CC-BY-SA every day 
by not listing every individual contributor, and we're also violating 
the database rights of the operator of the database because nowhere does 
CC-BY-SA grant you the permission required by European law to use 
someone else's database.

If you take a *relaxed* view then all our data is un-protected anyway 
because facts are not copyrightable.

> If that can't be worked out there will certainly be no-one making use of 
> OSM since it'd be a legal mess.

I hope that I have shown that we're in a legal mess already, and 
basically have been there from day one. This still doesn't mean we have 
to change the license; we could simply choose to keep the mess we have. 
But saying that our data was "properly licensed" at the moment is really 
very misleading.


More information about the talk mailing list