[OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 11:09:58AM -0500, Ineiev wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 04:13:12PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > 
> > So when relicensing the ultimate consequence is that you need to defend
> > your license - and thats was my first question. Is the OSMF willing
> > to enforce the license?
> 
> Why OSMF? the copyright holders are still the individual mappers---unless
> their copyright is transferred to someone else specifically.

Just from the License Proposal and Community Guidelines:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines

	The OSMF's mission is to support but not control OpenStreetMap. OSMF's
	role as Licensor and publisher of the database should not involve dictating policy. 

[ ... ]

	It must be emphasised that these guidelines apply only to OpenStreetMap
	data, other publishers using ODbL for other data may have their own
	ideas! Further, the Licensor in this case is the OpenStreetMap
	Foundation and not individual contributors or anyone with potential
	third party intellectual property interest. While we actively encourage
	all OpenStreetMap contributors to take part in this consensus process,
	we do not make any formal votes and no contributor is obliged to agree
	with all the guidelines or be bound by them. 

So - I am not the licensor of the Data directly to our Data consumer. I
license it to the OSMF which then licenses it to our Data Consumers.

I have not chosen THIS license - the OSMF did. The OSM Community just
had 2 choices - Take it or leave it. A lot of people left and we had
huge white spots in the map.

So - For me the moral obligation for the OSMF is now to do what they
told and promised us to do when we did the relicensing. The one and
only reason for relicensing has been that we were told that the share
alike feature of CC-BY-SA could not be enforced because it would
not fit Databases. So now we have an enforcable share alike license,
with attribution yadda yadda but nobody cares.

We now have a ton of restrictions and legalese jungle but not for the
"Big 5" - They are protected as they live in the Serengeti.

I/We fought hard about the new license. I was a strict opponent of the
ODbL and fought for Public Domain or CC0 to avoid all these discussions
we now have since the relicensing. I proposed a CC0 + Social Contract
like the Debian Social Contract. 

This is a farce for all those who can remember the hurdle with relicensing.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                 f at zz.de
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190302/515028e3/attachment.sig>