[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike

Norbert Wenzel norbert.wenzel.lists at gmail.com
Sat Mar 15 10:44:03 UTC 2014


On 03/15/2014 11:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Am 14/mar/2014 um 09:48 schrieb Norbert Wenzel <norbert.wenzel.lists at gmail.com>:
>>
>> And to the topic. It might not always be easy to enforce the
>> share-alike clause, but I really like the fact that we have it and may
>> enforce it if necessary.
> 
> Do you know of any case where OSMF did more than write a letter? Uses of osm without attribution are revealed every now and then but never has happened something (read: attempt to enforce the license) substantial whether they added attribution and declared share alike or not. e.g. MS could continue to distribute tainted aerials for months if not years, apple does so for at least 2 years, the wiki has a long but quite incomplete list of others: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License_violation

I do not know what the OSMF does regarding attribution and other license
violations, but I know cases where the local community "enforced" the
attribution, which, as others pointed out, would not be possible for PD
data. Usually you don't need to sue users to get a correct attribution.

That's all I personally want to see when someone uses OSM data.

Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 901 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20140315/225c8fea/attachment.pgp>


More information about the talk mailing list