[OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?

Serge Wroclawski emacsen at gmail.com
Sat May 1 10:55:46 BST 2010


On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:46 AM, jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com
<jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Me too!
> Maybe someday we will have to make a librestreetmap fork of project
> with stricter licenses policies for the software and better policies
> for the wiki.

Mike,

I'm a long time Free Software advocate/writing and a member of the FSF
(in that I pay dues).

And as far as writing software is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly
with you that software should be free, and given the choice between
Free and non-free software, I encourage people to use the Free
Software, and discourage people from writing non-free software.

That said, as far as I know, no Free software project has ever put in
its license that there's a requirement for data accessed via an API or
via a data format be made available under any specific license
requirements.

In other words, Apache doesn't say that you must use Firefox, and
OpenOffice.org doesn't say you must use OpenOffice, or Abiword, etc.

I think that even the most ardent Free Software person would argue
that these terms would be a net negative against the project. Free
Software is about giving the users freedoms[1], but it's always been
made clear that calls made "at arms length" and data exchange formats
are not subject to the terms of the license.

As for the sentiment in general, OpenStreetMap has two general
definitions. The first is the most strict- it's that OpenStreetMap is
the database, and just the database. The second is that OpenStreetMap
is the database, the web site, the tools (Postgis, Mapnik, etc.).

It's easy to see where the lines can be muddled. It's my understanding
that the OSMF only produces Free Software, it also encourages the use
of OSM to a larger audience, and that may mean non-Free software.
That's okay. That's part of our ecosystem of partners. So long as the
various organizations and individuals comply with the license, this is
okay.

Arguing for yet stricter license requirements seems silly when there
are parts of our existing population which find the license too
restrictive[2]. And I can tell you, as a Free Software supporter, that
if there were a project which dictated terms of use on remote APIs or
data exchange formats, I'd be pretty turned off myself.

- Serge

[1] Placing minimal restrictions when necessary to ensure those
freedoms, such as in the GPL.

[2] They are in favor of something more akin to Public Domain or CC0.




More information about the talk mailing list