Open Data License
From OpenStreetMap
This page explains the principal differences between our existing licence (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0) and the proposed new licence (Open Data License and Factual Info licences).
CC-BY-SA and the ODL licence share the same basic tenets - open, share-alike (aka copyleft/viral), and attributed. This page simply focuses on the details of where they differ. It is very much a summary document and you are encouraged to read the licences themselves.
Contents |
Legal basis
Unlike CC-BY-SA, ODL-Database is expressly enforced through copyright, database right, and contract (2.1). This gives protection in those countries where copyright does not apply to data and databases.
To ensure that potential users are aware of and agree to the contract terms, we are proposing to require a click-through agreement before downloading data. (All registered users would agree to this on signing up so will not need a further click-through on each download.)
CC-BY-SA does not draw a distinction between the database and the data. The ODC licences recognise that the two are often treated differently from a legal standpoint, and so provide a companion licence (ODC-Factual) for the data itself. The two would be used jointly in OSM's case.
Why OSMF believes this change is necessary: It is vital that our licence has legal force, in case a company with clever lawyers finds a way to use our data without respecting the intent of the community. Several legal interpretations hold that a copyright-based licence such as CC-BY-SA does not apply to geodata. ODC-Database provides much more protection here.
Attribution
ODL-Database expressly requires that credit is only given to the database, i.e. OpenStreetMap (4.2/4.3). CC-BY-SA, as applied to OSM, is unclear as to whether attribution to every individual contributor is required.
ODL-Database does offer the possibility of adding other attribution where another substantial data source has been imported (typically not under ODL-Factual). For example, the Canadian Geobase licence requires attribution.
Why OSMF believes this change is necessary: There has been much confusion about attribution requirements and we believe it is possible that, under CC-BY-SA, individual contributors could insist on attribution. At present, we are not complying with this. ODL-Database resolves this while still offering a method to incorporate large attribution-required datasets.
Share-alike for data
When someone takes OSM data and adds their own data to it (forming a "derivative database"), this data has to be made available on the same terms (4.4, 4.4c) - even if their intention was to publish a map and not distribute the data.
This means, for example, that a commercial cartographer wanting to augment their own maps with OSM data would have to publish their own data openly, too.
CC-BY-SA requires that the finished product is made share-alike, but not the source data. Under CC-BY-SA, even if the commercial map was freely copiable, OSM would not get the source data to add to our own database.
OSMF is asking the licence authors to add a further provision to make it clear that the data has to be "contributed back" in this way.
Why OSMF believes this change is necessary: We expect use of OSM data to expand rapidly in the years to come. We want to encourage such use and, at the same time, to benefit from it by increasing our data.
Derived works
If you create a mashup, a video, or a map using OSM data, ODL-Database calls this an "integrated experience" (4.3). In this case, you do not have to share the other parts of the experience (such as the other layers on the mashup, or the artistic cartography). However, you still have to share the map data, as above.
CC-BY-SA requires that the entire "derivative work" is shared. In the past, interpretations of this requirement have stopped OSM data being used as a layer in a commercial mapping website and as part of a TV news programme.
OSMF is asking the licence authors to change the ambiguous wording "more than one source" to "one or more sources".
Why OSMF believes this change is necessary: We wish to resolve one of the most debated aspects of the existing licence, and to encourage use of OSM data in ways that do not damage the project. We believe the approach taken by ODL-Database is a sensible one.
Note: 'Reverse engineering' from derived works
ODC-Database makes it explicit that lines traced from an OSM mashup or map (or other map made with OSM data) are still subject to the licence requirements (4.7).
Note: Parallel distribution
ODC-Database requires a database protected by "technological measures" - for example, map data in a sealed GPS car navigation unit - to also be made available in unrestricted form (4.6).
Criticism
In a posting on legal-talk, Jordan S. Hatcher, one of the drafters of the ODL, sums up the Science Commons argument for their protocol for open access data:
- In jurisdictions outside of Europe, the licence would rely on contract law and other non-copyright claims for restrictions over the factual data used apart from the database. This is a comparatively weaker form of protection than copyright.
- Science Commons has political reasons for not wanting to use the European Database Law because they think it is a bad law. The law has attracted criticism elsewhere, including within the EU's review of the database directive.
- OSM has different considerations to take into account when comparing them with commercial data providers.
For these, and other, reasons, the Science Commons people are suggesting that OpenStreetMap and any other data providers wishing to provide open data should adopt a licence or dedication that meets their Open Access Data Protocol as explained in their FAQ. This approach is more or less "Public Domain with a moral component" meaning that there is a legal tool dedicating work to the public domain and a non-binding community statement asking to provide attribution, among other options. Creative Commons is implementing this protocol in their new CCZero (or CC0) tool. The Open Data Commons project has also implemented this protocol with a dedication specifically meant for data, the Public Domain Dedication and Licence, together with a Community Norms statement.
Hatcher summed up the SC position as:
"The SC point out that all this sort of stuff can be a real pain, and isn't what you are really doing is wanting to create and manipulate factual data? Why spend all the time on this when the innovation happens in what you can do with the data, and not with trying to protect the data in the first place."
