...if noone enforces it? I am refering here to 3 recent cases, all from this year and involving global players:
1. Microsoft mixing OSM data and aerial imagery to obscure military installations in Germany, January 2012, nothing substancially happened so far http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/2012_Germany_Military_Blurring 2. Apple using OSM in iPhoto for iOS since April 2012 ((for photo journals and slideshow, for places they continued to use Google) meanwhile there is "half" credit, but the license is not mentioned, so people don't know that they are allowed to copy the maps, and e.g. in their current advertizing video http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/ they show a google logo 0:26-0:30 on the google map but there is no mention of OSM when the OSM based map is shown: 1:52-1:59) They also do have terms attached to iOS which seem to raise compatibility issues with Openstreetmaps former cc-by-sa license: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphotoios.pdf (don't be afraid of the 242 pages of terms, it's in different languages ;-) ) 2H. Digital Materials. Except as may be provided herein, you may not use, extract or distribute, commercially or otherwise, on a standalone basis, any photographs, images, graphics, artwork, audio, video or similar assets (“Digital Materials”) contained within, or provided as a part of, the Apple Software, or otherwise use the Digital Materials outside the context of its intended use as part of the Apple Software. No mention at all of Openstreetmap or map in this document (iPHOTO SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT) 3. Apple using OSM in their iOS6 maps (again missing license information, i.e. officially it is not even clear whether their maps are produced from ODbL or cc-by-sa data, and again you don't know which part is based on OSM, so you can't be relaxed when sharing their maps under cc-by-sa conditions). IMHO they used this peripherical use in their iPhoto for iOS app as a test balloon and when they saw that our license enforcement is a toothless snow tiger, they could be relaxed when violating the license again in their new major iPhone feature (maps). Or do you have any other explanation how comes they failed a second time within a few months in fulfilling OSM's license requirements? Is it too difficult to find the license requirements on our website? Don't they have a legal team to cross check these issues? Would they have failed in attributing data from a commercial provider? Does anybody think Apple is simply negligent on such a crucial point in their key feature of the new iOS? What has the OSMF done to make these corporate users adhere to our license, a license which all of the current contributors just recently have voted to be the best license for the project? 1. In the Microsoft case the community was asked on 2nd February to be patient (from IRC): "Microsoft has received requests from the armed forces to blur areas in Germany (StGB 109g is one of the corresponding directives which has been used as reference). We, Bing, have to comply with this requests erroneously used among other sources also some OSM information. We're working to correct the polygons and rework the blurring areas however it will take some time due to the amount of processing involved. We understand this is objectionable to some members of the OSM community but based on our very good relationship we hope and thank you for your understanding and patience" 2. The board had decided in an extraordinary meeting in April to deal directly with this case ("due to the importance and timeliness") rather than the LWG ( https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=16E0l4NdeMkUqgEe_mPC78tJ9yPQHUuRZYNtapBEM2K4 ), but since then this issue didn't reappear in the board minutes. iPhoto for iOS still does not mention the license of the contained OSM data and their SLA still contradicts cc-by-sa requirements. OK, they do attribute to OSM, but they don't satisfy the requirements of the cc-by-sa license (name and link the license and share-alike provisions). 3. Since maps on iOS6 came out 2 weeks ago with similar problems regarding the license (obfuscation of the license terms of OSM data, it is not even clear where they use OSM data (so how could you share alike?), they do give OSM less attribution visibility than TomTom, etc.) there is not yet a statement from OSMF, so we can still hope. Sorry for the long mail and thank you for reading until here. I also believe it is marvellous that a growing number of users including global players see the benefit of using OSM maps, and we should embrace this use, but not for the cost of completely ignoring license issues. Either we make all users adhere to the terms, or we change the terms to make them fit with the current uses, but we shouldn't really allow important players a less strict interpretation of our license terms than we allow to all other smaller users. And legally I think that the board doesn't have a mandate to reduce the license requirements for select users. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk