[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Anthony]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and
> deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not
> about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No matter if
> we have CC-favoured "community norms" on top of a PD waiver, ODbL+CT, or
> CC-BY-SA, for these three companies, being seen to "do the wrong thing" in
> their key market would be a sufficient disincentive.

Google seemed to have no problem with the reputation risk of violating
the copyrights of thousands of book authors.

> It's everyone else who we have to worry about.

Worry about?  What exactly is there to worry about?

> In the last couple of months,
> I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a
> turnover of >£100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book
> publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and
> share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for
> this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an
> entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent
> of the niceties.

Would a different license change this?  If so, why?

> No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence. Everyone
> else is, though.

Are they infringing the license, or are they following it in a way
that wasn't intended?