Mike Dupont писал 2012-09-12 00:56:
I have been wondering what the license is on the gps points? is it affected by the change?
For a long time I though that all GPX traces are in public domain. There was no user agreement signed, no clauses in CT concerning GPX traces, and with anonymization means it is impossible to impose -BY licenses on them. Also, there is a case of "factual data", and the traces are obviously factual: they state where the GPS device was at specific time. That excludes, of course, imports done in GPX format, like this: http://zverik.osm.rambler.ru/gps/?zoom=11&lat=8.81003&lon=-74.13096&layers=BT (thanks to AndrewBuck for the find). But I consider that uploading such fabricated traces should be prohibited, with immediate removing of anything that looks suspicious, because it almost always breaches the license terms, regardless of actual license.
But in http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/04/01/bulk-gps-point-data/ it is clearly stated that the array of GPS points published on planes.osm.org/gps is release under CC-BY-SA license. Since we're changing (have already changed) our license to ODbL, we know that CC-BY-SA does not work. But nevertheless we have to respect it, so all extracts and all tiles made from the GPS points dumps should be published at least under CC-BY-SA license. This is the case for data on the http://zverik.osm.rambler.ru site.
Now, after the recent announcement http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/09/11/change-to-odbl-imminent/, it is stated that "API transactions ... will consist of ODbL-licensed OpenStreetMap data". It is debatable whether GPX responses are actually "OpenStreetMap data", but I presume the intention was that everything coming out of our API is now ODbL licensed, including GPX traces. That does not mean the license for older data, such as the data on zverik.osm.rambler.ru is changed, but the chance is, when the next GPS points dump will be made, its license most probably be ODbL.
Finally, that brings up the question, whether the traces uploaded by decliners or non-agreers were removed from the database. As far as I know, they haven't. But since those people didn't agree on relicensing all their "OpenStreetMap data" under different license, that means either that GPX traces are not considered OSM data, or that traces were never restricted by -BY clause in the first place (let alone -SA). And this gives up a possibility to be generous this time and release the GPX database under more permissive, non-copyleft license, such as CC0 or WTFPL. All in all, this whole question depends on whether an individual GPX trace is factual data, and how the OSMF would treat the database of such traces, the license for which can, and should be independent from individual traces licenses (an example of which being ODbL vs DbCL or postal codes databases).
I get the impression this hasn't been given much thought from LWG, because OSM data is considered far more important. But having the license change process for OSM data finished, I guess it is the time to make a decision for less important part of our database, which is "the largest collection of Open Data GPS points published". Are we confident enough in our map data to let others use this collection for no return? Or should we protect it as much as our map data? It is clear we don't consider GPX data on par with OSM data, but since I have just reminded everybody that it exists, does it mean everyone would start protecting it as vigorously? My opinion is that as an "Open" project we should try to make all our data as free and as open as possible -- CC0 being the ideal. And the GPX data is a perfect candidate to start with. But this is for you and for LWG to decide.
IZ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
