OpenStreetMap licence? [LWN.net]

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 24, 2010 21:47 UTC (Wed) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] (1 responses)

What exactly does it prohibit?

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 25, 2010 12:36 UTC (Thu) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

The ODL try to enforce EU-style sui-generis database right in jurisdiction where they do not exist in law.

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 24, 2010 21:49 UTC (Wed) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]

"It goes as far as forbidding use that would be legal according to copyright law."

The problem here is that copyright law is _very_ complex and nuanced when it comes to geodata. Remember - depending on your region, there may be more than copyright that is applicable to the data - e.g. "database rights".

"We wondered why OSM moved to self-destruct mode with the ODL and copyright assignment. Now we know: Microsoft is involved."

This is nonsense. Whatever you think of the license, the motivation behind it was with the best of intentions.

The "self destruct mode" is also very exaggerated. What we have is _relatively_ few dissenters who are making a lot of noise and are tiring out most of the sane voices. Remember - keeping the data CC-BY-SA is effectively the same as making it public domain because CC-BY-SA is not really applicable to map data.

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 24, 2010 22:34 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (12 responses)

When version 1.0 of the licence was first announced I posted a comment on LWN with my thoughts.

Since then, I would add that the 'copyright doesn't apply to map data' meme which is so often repeated does not appear to have any basis in fact. If you doubt it, please try wholesale copying of Tele Atlas or Ordnance Survey or any other copyrighted map data set. Indeed the OSM project itself recognizes this fact: copying data from other maps is prohibited unless they are out of copyright (even if they are old enough to predate the existence of any database right).

But, for the time being, OSM is still using the free CC-BY-SA licence, and it is unlikely to switch before achieving consensus on any replacement. (A move to public domain or attribution-only would make more sense than the big hairball of legalese that is the ODbL.)

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 25, 2010 7:45 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] (11 responses)

There's a difference between map-data, and maps. That is, a map is something more than a collection of data.

The individual datapoints don't enjoy copyright, it's the creative and artistic expression of them, including the selection of which facts to show, that may.

Feel free to, for example, copy the fact that Oslo is capitol of Norway from a map, from a encyclopedia, from any other copyrigthed work. That fact is not, and can not be, copyrigthed. But a text that writes about Norway and mentions the capitol, can be. And a map that shows Norway, and displays the capitol, also can be.

Yes it's tricky.

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 25, 2010 8:59 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (10 responses)

Feel free to, for example, copy the fact that Oslo is capitol of Norway from a map, from a encyclopedia, from any other copyrighted work. That fact is not, and can not be, copyrighted.

Yes, and it's absolutely bananas to treat that as a bug, and attempt to restrict distribution of such 'mere facts' by putting magic text in a licence document, turning it into an EULA (which is nonetheless still not enforceable, since nobody need agree to it).

This misguided effort has been driven by the idea that since facts like the capital of Norway are not subject to copyright, somehow the entire map is not subject to it, simply because it is stored electronically in machine-readable form.

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 25, 2010 12:13 UTC (Thu) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] (9 responses)

True, facts can't be copyrighted. That's not the problem.

The effort to collect and describe these facts, and therefore the resulting work (i.e. the database) can be. The only question is which license one puts them under.

OpenStreetmap has traditionally used CC-BY-SA, but that's inconsistent. Databases are not a work of art, and the "Oslo is the capitol of Norway" entry in the OSM database is not a Wikipedia article.

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.

The "maps are facts and therefore not copyrightable" idea may be cute in theory, but the real world doesn't work like that. The commercial mapping companies out there have repeatedly prevailed in court against people who simply placed a "here's how to find me" map image on their homepage.

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 25, 2010 13:11 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (4 responses)

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.

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 26, 2010 7:37 UTC (Fri) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (3 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 28, 2010 0:35 UTC (Sun) by jhhaller (guest, #56103) [Link] (3 responses)

In general, the commercial map companies have identified copies of their maps by adding information for things that don't exist, such as fictional cities or cul-de-sacs that don't exist (depending on map scale). The maps might not be quite to scale, or other things that allow the map company to identify verbatim copies without disturbing people looking for legitimate things. My favorite was the Beat OSU in a Michigan map (a local sports rivalry). This is the same type of thing that phone books use to identify copies.

OpenStreetMap licence?

Posted Nov 28, 2010 9:23 UTC (Sun) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]

The "beatosu" one also has "goblu" -- according to "How to Lie with Maps" (ISBN 0-226-53421-9)

Map recognition

Posted Nov 28, 2010 9:34 UTC (Sun) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] (1 responses)

Not only the commercial mappers do that. OSM has an entire fake Bavarian village hidden in its database.

Map recognition

Posted Nov 28, 2010 17:30 UTC (Sun) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]

That was an April Fools Day prank, right? :)