Allow me to gently suggest that we try to keep this thread grounded in concrete concerns. I am always up for some flag-waving about sharealike versus PD, but I think it would be best housed in a new thread or the talk list (it's a general enough principle that the larger community deserves to weigh in if it's to be revisited).
Stace has pointed to specific use cases that I suspect many of us would like OSM to support--academic research subject to temporary embargo and scenarios with serious privacy limitations--and to the current lack of guidance being a stumbling block. Stace, do you feel the guideline under consideration would address the kind of roadblocks you've referenced? On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > I designed a license concept that’s relevant as an alternative way of > thinking about this: > > http://stevecoast.com/2015/09/30/license-ascent/ > > On a different note: It’s a false dichotomy to compare OSM and Public > Domain, it’s really about comparing buying a proprietary map (which the OP > didn’t mention that I saw) and OSM. If you want all these rights, you can > just pick up the phone and pay HERE or TomTom for them, they’d love to hear > from you. From that standpoint OSM looks wonderful of course. > > Best > > Steve > > On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Mr. Stace D Maples < > stacemap...@stanford.edu> wrote: > >> One other question, and I’m just curious, not trying to start a flame >> war. Isn’t some of the data in OSM from public domain datasets? If so, what >> is the OSM rationale for placing a more restrictive licensing model on that >> data? >> > > Well, this issue is actually a "religious" war most commonly known as the > BSD vs. GPL debate. > > Personally, I take issue with your statement that ODbL is a "more > restrictive" license than public domain. It all depends on your definition > of "restrictive" vis-a-vis "freedom". Public domain or CC-BY-style > licensing (aka BSD style) does provide the immediate user with a lot more > rights than a share-alike license like ODbL or CC-BY-SA (aka GPL style). > However, those rights are only guaranteed for the immediate user. The > immediate user can add his own improvements to it and then make those > improvements proprietary—a usage right that's allowed. Unfortunately, other > users cannot make use of those improvements. > > On the other hand, a share-alike license aims to be a more sustainable > model. It restricts the immediate user on only one aspect: the right to > make a share-alike content/data/IP proprietary is explicitly disallowed. > This ensures that any improvements are shared back to the community, unlike > with the BSD-style licensing. > > For me, share-alike licensing for OSM data is a net positive. This > licensing ensures that nobody can take the data, improve it to make it even > more valuable and then make it proprietary. > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk