[OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

Pierre-Alain Dorange pdorange at mac.com
Thu Aug 19 13:44:18 BST 2010


Chris Browet <cbro at semperpax.com> wrote:

> > You don't really map for "humanity" now, but for yourself. The actual
> > licence grant YOU rights on the data you put in OSM database, the change
> > is to "give" those rights the the OSMF that would represent the OSM
> > community.
> >
> 
> Agreed, but given the choice, I'd rather put my data in public domain than
> to basically donate it to a specific, nebulous, entity.

There is an option for Public Domain in the CT, but then no-one has
rights on what you put in OSM. So then there is no more room for any
licence or legal barrier. Its seems perfect for you.
Public Domain is not legally possible in some country (in France for
example PD has no legallity, author rights can be removed by any licence
or contract).

> > With the CCBYSA licence each contributor has rights on what i put in the
> > database, so the copyright notice grants "contributors", with the new
> > licence the OSMF would be granted as the "community". SO OSMF could do
> > legal things if a compagny break the future licence (with the actual
> > licence, no one can legal attack a compagny that wouldn't respect
> > licence, because the CCBYSA do not protect data and because there is no
> > "central organisation")...
> >
> 
> But what would "breaking the license" be? Take a snapshot and closing it? I
> don't care.

Sorry for my poor english. "break the licence" means for me that an
entity used OSM data and do not apply licence terms. For example copying
and closing data, or copying add feature and not sharealike, incorporate
in a commercial product without granted OSM contributors or OSMF...

> However, depending on the vague  definition of "free and open license", by
> accepting the new CT, I'm giving the OSMF the right to do exactly that and
> worse...

Yes it's a vague definition but free and open is the contrary of close.
So closing OSM data by the ASMF is not possible.

> > > I've seen often that the reply to this argument is that we must trust
> > OSMF,
> > > that it will make sure OSM is under good care.
> > > Honestly, in this world, who would trust a foundation whose members he
> > > doesn't know personally? Even if he would, what about future members?
> >
> > No one can know, but there is limitations in the Licence and CT. OSMF
> > can change licence to a free and open one not a closed one it can't be
> > done.
> >
> 
> They definitely need to define that, it would help. "an OSI endorsed free
> and open license", maybe...

Yes it would be better ; but OSI licence apply to works and code, not
data ; that's why the ODSL licence has been created and it was the first
one for now. but perhaps tomoroow OSI or CC crete a new data licence
better and then it would be nice to switch again ?

Sorry, but there is something i do not understand in your vision.
You said you prefer Public Domain, licensing your work without constrain
so that anyone can use it for any purpose. That's OK but please note
that it's not nor the actual licence, nor the exact philosophy behind
OSM from its beginning (BY and SA terms).

Then you don't want OSMF to be granted for rights on contributors
contributions but you're perfectly OK if a compagny take OSM data and
use it for a commercial product without sharealike or copyrights... 
So it seems you prefer a private compagny "stole" our works than a
foundation (you can below to) represent the community ?
It's a bit strange to me. But i suppose i do not undestand your point.

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange




More information about the talk mailing list