[OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

Steve Coast steve at asklater.com
Thu Jun 23 21:09:26 BST 2011



On 6/22/2011 5:16 PM, David Murn wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:25 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
>> Well there's one other aspect which is there are chunks of data only
>> available to OpenStreetMap and nobody else.
> Does the data exclusively available under the ODbL outweigh the data
> exclusively available under CC?  Since not even OSM uses the ODbL yet, I
> find it totally amazing that any other entity would be.

I think you need to think about the data that OSM derives from, like 
aerial imagery.

> Also..
>
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:35 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
>> Why do you feel you have a liability?
> Because I have used data from a source which cannot be relicenced.  Id
> feel the same way if Id taken OSM data and put it into another external
> project, which was then planning to change its licence and take the OSM
> data along with it.
>
> Personally, I dont have a liability as I was aware early enough that my
> contributions couldnt be relicenced.  Unfortunately some people have
> accepted the CTS without fully understanding that they didnt have the
> rights to relicence the data.  The fact of having each individual user
> accept contributor terms, means that effectively you have passed the
> liability directly onto the user who contributed the 'offending' data
> rather than the foundation who refuse to remove the data in the first
> place.

Do you have any legal opinion to support this?

Steve


> David
>
>> On 6/22/2011 4:22 PM, David Murn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 21:17 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map
>>>> Maker were to post a similar message. "Hey, don't like how things go in
>>>> OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved!"
>>> Except that
>>>
>>> a) Map Maker never had any compatability with any version of OSM
>>> b) Users who used OSM for the past few years dont necessarily want
>>> licence issues 'solved' (especially if the only difference they see is a
>>> degraded map)
>>> c) fosm isnt a wholey different project in the same way MapMaker is.
>>> fosm is a copy of OSM, and the two will parallel each other until the
>>> time that OSM splits off with a new licence change.  If you think of
>>> fosm as the continuation and OSM as the fork with 'all licence issues
>>> solved', youre more on-track to the situation
>>>
>>> The day after the changeover occurs, the world will look at OSM and fosm
>>> and theyll see one is a small subset of the other, until the time that
>>> the main OSM project can come close to making up for the data that has
>>> had to be removed.  Joe user (especially Joe user who might use map
>>> maker) doesnt give a rats about licence terms, all they care about is
>>> seeing complete maps.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>



More information about the talk mailing list