Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Use of OSM data by the military and/or intelligence services
On 02/04/2010 09:15 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 04/02/10 14:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> AFAIK our current license offers our data for everyone who attributes >> correctly, but I'd like to raise the issue of malicious use of our >> data by governmental organisations. What do you thing about setting up >> a paragraph that prohibits the use of our data for military and >> intelligence services? Not that I'm hoping this would seriously >> prevent the use in case we have useful data to them, but still it >> would be a statement. [...] > A discriminatory licence would prevent all of these benefits while not > preventing military or espionage use or creation of other map data that > we do not get access to. > > I mention these points as illustrations of the argument that abandoning > a commitment to freedom would be bad, not in addition to it. I agree on that. Imho freedom and openness in this context is what counts. And if they were to use our data (with proper attribution) and maybe even contribute to it, I don't see a reason why _we_ shouldn't be open. Kind regards, Stefan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Use of OSM data by the military and/or intelligence services
On 04/02/10 14:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > AFAIK our current license offers our data for everyone who attributes > correctly, but I'd like to raise the issue of malicious use of our > data by governmental organisations. What do you thing about setting up > a paragraph that prohibits the use of our data for military and > intelligence services? Not that I'm hoping this would seriously > prevent the use in case we have useful data to them, but still it > would be a statement. The military are often involved in humanitarian aid and relief projects that can benefit from OSM data. Military and intelligence data shared through a project like OSM would allow civilian organizations, even dissenting civilian organizations, to benefit from that data. If one wishes to criticise the military and the intelligence services, getting them to open up and become more engaged with civil society is a good thing. A discriminatory licence would prevent all of these benefits while not preventing military or espionage use or creation of other map data that we do not get access to. I mention these points as illustrations of the argument that abandoning a commitment to freedom would be bad, not in addition to it. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
