On Monday 16 December 2019, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote: > > > > The usual view is that share-alike provisions do not make something > > non-free or non-open because they are meant to protect and extend > > the freedom and only constrain users of truly non-free data. But > > anyone can have a different opinion on that of course. > > Sorry to say this, but I don't feel like you want to protect your > data. It feels like you want to grab all the data, your data comes > into contact with. "Viral" is the right term here - do you know the > Borg? :-)
There is a long history of discussion about the benefits of viral/share-alike licenses in the open data/free software movement. In OSM we have had this discussion extensively before the license change. I tried to provide a bit of insight about why we have share-alike but people here in general are fairly reluctant to reiterate that discussion because it rarely brings any new insights. Apart from the mentioned importance of share-alike for the social contract between mappers and data users it is also doubtful that OSM would still exist as a single homogeneous project as we know it today if in 2012 we would have chosen a non-share-alike license. It is very likely that OSM would have split off several proprietary forks with which corporate data users would have tried to distinguish themselves from the competition by creating improved versions of the OSM database adding proprietary data without feeding it back into the openly licensed public database. Please keep in mind that the image of a viral license is partly misleading because everyone has the free choice to not use the data and not 'be infected' while a biological virus does not typically give you that freedom. > > Both share-alike and attribution play an important role in OSM in > > the social contract between mappers and data users. In return for > > being able to use the results of the work of the mappers for free, > > data users are required to share improvements of the data or the > > results of producing something of additional value in combination > > with other data under open license terms. > > If attribution would pay a role, than "(c) Non-Free data, selected by > using OSM data ..." would be possible. That might be an idea for > future license drafts. The viewpoint communicated by Kathleen would mean data sets partly derived from OSM through spatial operations without containing substantial amounts of the original data in original form (that is essentially the case we are talking about here in abstract form) would require neither share-alike nor attribution since they are neither a Derivative Database, a Collective Database nor a Produced Work. So while your willingness to attribute is admirable this kind of attribution for mixed and processed data without share-alike is not something that the ODbL considers a separate scenario. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
