Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

2014-10-30 Thread Rob Myers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 30/10/14 12:51 PM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> Share Alike is the expression for fear of abuse.

Share-Alike is a weaker description of copyleft.

Copyleft is a strategy used to ensure the freedom of all users of a
resource, rather than simply the first to grab it.

> In my mind there cant be any abuse of OSM data.

There can however be a failure to respect that freedom.

> I want the OSM Data to be available everywhere and anyone.

That requires copyleft, as otherwise people can make that data part of
a system that denies other people the freedom they exercised in making it.

> And it needs to be a no brainer which it isnt right now.

It already was with BY-SA. It was made even more of a no brainer with
the switch from BY-SA to OSM.

> For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a 
> commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a
> licensing issue.

If we add up the cost of all the time company representatives have
spent trying to get OSM to change its licensing *a second time*, it
would have been a lot cheaper for them to get together and just hire a
lawyer who knew what they were doing.

> ANY restriction is a problem for adoption as one can see e.g. from 
> the discussion about geocoding data.

There is no problem with geocoding, the quantitative part of the ODbL
covers this and there is no need for any qualitative redefinitions.

There is however a very obvious potential problem with people
extracting substantial parts of the database via "geocoding" and then
saying they aren't covered by the derivatives part of the license
because "geocoding".

- - Rob.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUp/wAAoJECciMUAZd2dZX98IALGlSY5On5Bmc80Iq83UFOcG
+JvNSs3yMB9fmllGAHifRcOBKUc+3mQzCPBthL2T2AoHrn+PgY4c93eKVuapxpG2
kYv0j+le/yXu9NhlUCaoB8o+0HzoabCIS0z8MlGik1CkOCeJ/Kt1pB9I2JDq+cCQ
fdBBTdtU0PxKjbGu8rrRmytr33GitTq5Om9kVrUUJkJCoiiEJGiUTf5h/O45v/w3
C8R3YZT+PwBcJaTHmBdraeVRoZ9+HDKHzoQOSDOyhzIAY+hmbxk+vgyQ86M745aa
344/S6yy8lZ/4IwHD8AC3ZMyhI71CZD+8pisp1s4ofF6ULNBZaMCBn+E3qkus7Y=
=hpnW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

2014-10-30 Thread Florian Lohoff

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:02:27PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that
> was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike
> licenses is to "infect" other stuff that gets in contact with the
> share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself.

Share Alike is the expression for fear of abuse.

In my mind there cant be any abuse of OSM data. I want the OSM Data to be
available everywhere and anyone. And it needs to be a no brainer which it isnt
right now. For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a
commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a licensing issue.

ANY restriction is a problem for adoption as one can see e.g. from
the discussion about geocoding data.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

2014-10-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2014-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth :

> Updated:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guideline&diff=1102233&oldid=1076215
>
>
>


wouldn't it make more sense to come to a conclusion here before updating
the wiki?

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk