[OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
emacsen at gmail.com
Mon Mar 17 18:52:37 UTC 2014
Some of the points you continue to make are patently false.
> 1. There is more open data coming online by the day and we are not compatible
Let's take this apart. If the data is "open", by which you mean that
it would fall into something like the definition of
freedomdefined.org, then there are only a few ways in which the ODbL
would be incompatible:
1. Requirement for attribution
If this were the case, dropping Share-Alike would change nothing
2. Requirement for Share-Alike
If this were the case, dropping Share-Alike would make us less compatible
3. An addition requirement on the data
If this is the case, it's not "open data" and thus the statement is false
> The world is doing more stuff with raw data.
Yes, they should do more stuff with Free data, and what they can do
has virtually no limitations.
> OpenStreetMap's problem is that share-alike's diminishing effect on utility is more severe for data than for software.
Hyperbole, and as shown previously, based on statements which are just not true.
There are unfortunate side effects. It would be nice if OSM were
compatible with governments, for example, but unfortunately do to so
would grant our non-Free competitors far too much advantage over us.
How do I know this to be the case? Because it's happened already. It's
already happened that companies like Google have used OSM data, and
have bad to take that data down after it was pointed out that the
license was incompatible.
The minute that OSM data were put out without Share-Alike, we would be
utterly demolished by other entities taking OSM data, adding data to
it, and then selling "enhanced versions".
More information about the talk