David Murn wrote: > I had been considering making all my contributions to OSM, thinking that > 'open' in OSM means the same as 'open' in open-source, ie. you can use > my software and my changes, but if you derive anything from my work, you > cannot impose restrictions above and beyond the licence the content was > released under.
It is the same 'open' as in Open Source. However, just as with Open Source Software, the forced openness does not extend across the boundary between content and software: You are allowed to use GIMP for creating an image that you publish under a proprietary license, and you are allowed to edit CC-by-sa images in Photoshop. Similarly, you are allowed to load CC-by-sa OSM data with proprietary software. Of course, this doesn't mean that software provided for using OSM cannot also have FOSS requirements. So if you create GPL software to work with OSM and someone integrates your software with theirs, then they have to publish it as GPL software, too. But that's because of the software's license, not due to the license of OSM data. > My whole reason for dedicating efforts to OSM, rather than other > projects such as google mapmaker, is due to the forced openness which > every user/member has to comply with. Google Map Maker cannot be considered free because they put /data/ under a proprietary license. Also, they don't just /allow/ use of their data by proprietary software, they /force/ you to use proprietary software if you even want to edit their map. > Of course, this is assuming that you really did mean your comment about > OSM being only about the data and not about the software, which I can > only assume you dont? An impressive amount of software has been created by OSM project members and/or for use with OSM, and a lot of that is FOSS. Software is an important part of the OSM ecosystem, so even though the core idea of the project is to create free map data, the creation of associated software is inevitably part of that. > If all that hurts your head, it hurts my head just as much seeing > closed-source software promoted by a site whos sole purpose is the > freedom of information. OSM Composer isn't promoted by OSM. The tool is presented in the wiki, and it's correctly categorized as "Proprietary Software". Imo, these wiki pages about software are a useful service for project members who want to know where and how OSM can be used. openstreetmap.de, btw, is not officially part of the project. Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
