| |||||||||||||
OpenStreetMap licence?OpenStreetMap licence?Posted Nov 25, 2010 13:11 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769)In reply to: OpenStreetMap licence? by smurf Parent article: Microsoft helping OpenStreetMap
The problem is: CC-BY-SA and the actual and/or intended use of the data conflict in a few places. Many people (around 85% of the OSM contributors, AFAIK) think these are important and have therefore voted for replacing the license with one that's tailored for databases, while essentially granting the same freedoms.There has been no such vote. The OSM contributors have not been given the opportunity to vote - although there is a page with a single 'accept' option, with the threat that your data will be deleted from the project if you don't agree. Personally, I'd be happy to add 'a licence tailored for databases' as an option, but not by dropping Creative Commons compatibility. That is a big step backwards.
(Log in to post comments)
OpenStreetMap licence? Posted Nov 26, 2010 7:37 UTC (Fri) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
Well, it's a vote in the sense that if you disagree you don't do anything. If enough people disagree, well, then it's obvious something else needs to be done.
The real problem is that CC-BY-SA is a completely inappropriate license and ignoring that fact isn't helping anyone. Under the current licence if you make a map from OSM data you need to technically list the name of every contributor who ever edited anything in that area. Nobody does this of course but it indicates the issues. And that licence applies to the resulting map, meaning you can't include it in other works with a conflicting licence. CC-BY-SA is a too restrictive licence, you need something with less scope. Pretending it isn't copyrightable is right up there with pretending the world == America.
BTW, The "Accept" button also places your contributions in the public domain (wherever the concept exists and is applicable) if that makes you feel any better.
OpenStreetMap licence? Posted Nov 26, 2010 9:41 UTC (Fri) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] I totally agree. Correction: The "Accept" button also places your contributions in the public domain only applies if you also click the appropriate button below the agreement. It defaults to Off.
OpenStreetMap licence? Posted Nov 26, 2010 12:45 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] Pretending it isn't copyrightable is right up there with pretending the world == America.I completely agree with this and it is the point I was trying to make. Much of the justification for dropping CC-BY-SA in favour of the more complex ODbL is the assertion that 'copyright doesn't apply' for some reason. This is simply false. I don't believe that listing the names of all contributors is necessary even under the strictest interpretation; it's not like the BSD advertising clause where there is some fixed text specified by the licence. You are right that a CC licence is quite restrictive in some cases, preventing a map from being included as part of a larger work unless that work is also CC-licensed. This is a good argument for offering a more liberal licence as an alternative. It does not argue for revoking CC-BY-SA permission altogether.
OpenStreetMap licence? Posted Nov 26, 2010 16:07 UTC (Fri) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]
"You are right that a CC licence is quite restrictive in some cases, preventing a map from being included as part of a larger work unless that work is also CC-licensed."
If a map printed in a book would be treated like a photograph printed in a book then I don't think this worry is true. See the discussion in the cc-community archives. Same for a newspaper article and what have you.
I don't like that this is true and keep trying to get BY-SA changed to close what I consider to be a loophole, but that hasn't happened yet.
drew
|
|||||||||||||