Open Database License Relicensing FAQ
What do I need to do as a user to change the license?
Right now - nothing. Stay tuned until we have some consensus and a process.
What alternative licence is the OSMF recommending?
The licence we are proposing to adopt is the Open Data Licence (ODL-Database), combined with the ODL Factual Info Licence (ODC-Factual). "The Open Data Commons is a licence agreement intended to allow you to freely share, modify, and use this database while maintaining this same freedom for others."
(The database itself is licenced under the Database Licence: when you upload your individual contributions, you agree to licence them under the Factual Info Licence.)
The OpenStreetMap Foundation is working with the licence's authors to secure a small number of additions, so that we have the best licence possible for OSM - and we would like to hear your suggestions for any other changes or additions.
How will the proposed licence benefit OpenStreetMap?
The proposed licence:
- offers greater protection to the data, because it applies to copyright, to database right, and as a contract.
- is expressly written for data. It is clearer what you can, and can't, do with the data. This will encourage more people to use OSM's open data, and clearly differentiate it from closed map data sources.
- requires those that combine our data with their own data will have to give the latter to OSM. This means we get more open data. Under the current licence, they have to make the end result copiable (such as a map), but not the source data.
Can I see all the differences?
Yes, see ODC Licence Differences for a detailed list of differences.
The headlines are:
- Expressly works with database right and contract, for those countries where copyright does not apply to map data;
- Attribution (a credit) is always required to OpenStreetMap, rather than individual contributors;
- If you distribute OSM data with other map data, you have to make the other data available;
- But if you create an "integrated experience" (e.g. mashup or cartography), the share-alike licence only applies to the map data.
In essence, we believe it is"what we meant when we said by-sa".
How will the switch take place?
The plan, essentially, is to switch license from our existing licence (CCBYSA 2.0) to ODC in 4 stages.
- Stage 1 - Get suggestions for any changes required in addition to those identified by the OSMF
- Stage 2 - Engage the licence's author to amend the licence as required
- Stage 3 - Email all OSM users who have contributed data with the option of re-licensing their data
- Stage 4 - Remove all data from those who do not respond or respond negatively (the hard bit)
Doesn't the current licence give us this?
Yes and no. OSM currently uses the Creative Commons Share-Alike/Attribution 2.0 licence, or CC-BY-SA for short. Users sign up to this licence when they join the project. The main problems that have come to light over time are:
- The CC-BY-SA licence was not designed to apply to databases of information and therefore has shortcomings when attempting to protect the OSM data.
- The method of giving attribution is somewhat impracticable for a project with many thousands of contributors.
- Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups)
What is the role of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in this?
This is a proposal by the OpenStreetMap Foundation board, an elected body made up of mappers and developers from the OSM community, and including people from all sides of the licence debate. The OSMF looks out for the OSM project on behalf of its members.
The OSMF cannot and will not make any change to the licence without acceptance by the OSM users. Recommendations given here are the recommendations of the OSMF board, which has evaluated all the available options.
What options has the OSMF evaluated?
Recognising the perceived deficiencies in the existing licence, the OSMF board has been evaluating users' views:
- expressed on the mailing lists and wiki,
- reaction at last year's State Of The Map conference debate,
- direct feedback from users.
We have also sought legal opinion and the views of other organisations such as Creative Commons.
The OSMF has considered existing and emerging licences and has come to the conclusion that maintaining a Share-Alike/Attribution licence is in the project's best interests and keeps with the original intent of what users signed up to when they joined. The search therefore has focused upon the need for a database licence based upon Share-Alike and Attribution ideals.
Why not a public domain/BSD-type licence?
Some OpenStreetMap contributors believe their data should be in the public domain - entirely free of any restriction. Because you as a contributor keep the rights in your contributions, you can choose to make your data public domain if you wish, as well as being available under the OpenStreetMap licence. This will still be possible after any change in the licence.
Other contributors disagree, believing that public domain would allow commercial companies to take advantage without contributing back to OpenStreetMap. If OSM changed to public domain, these contributors have indicated they would withdraw their data. In particular, we could lose large contributions such as the entire Netherlands dataset donated by AND.
We do recognise the strength of feeling on this issue but feel that it would be divisive to make such a fundamental change.
Why aren't you changing to another Creative Commons licence?
We have consulted with Creative Commons who have kindly given of their time to advise us. We would have liked Creative Commons to have offered a sharealike/attribution data licence that we could adopt. However, their position is that map data should be dedicated to the public domain, as per their new Open Access Data Protocol and the CC-Zero licence. The OSMF board does not believe this route is in the project's best long term interests.
Who wrote the proposed licence?
The draft ODC licence was written by Jordan Hatcher and Dr Charlotte Waelde, who were sponsored by Talis. Jordan is a lawyer and consultant working on copyright and content issues, whose specialism is intellectual property and IT law. Charlotte is Co-Director of the AHRB Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law, co-editor of 'Law and the Internet', and author of a definitive text on licensing geographic data.
Why didn't you choose this licence in the first place?
As with many aspects of OSM, we have been learning as we go along, and initially did not realise the particular needs of data licensing. Nor did many others - indeed, OSM is perhaps the world's biggest openly-licensed, user-contributed data project, and Jordan has stated that OSM was uppermost in his thoughts when drafting the licence. When we started, there was no open data licence available.
Will this change how people access OSM data?
Only in one small way.
The Open Database Licence works three ways - by contract, by database right, and by copyright - to cope with different countries' legal systems. In some countries (e.g. the US), data can only be protected by contract.
To make it clear that users agree to the contract, it is likely that anonymous download of the data via the API will not be permitted as present. Anonymous download of data will still be possible, but only via a licence acceptance click-through on the OSM website. Access to the planet files will receive similar treatment and future planet files will contain details of the licence. This helps enforce the contract element of the licence in applicable jurisdictions.
What happens if not everyone agrees?
We do not want to force contributors to relicense their work against their will. If a substantial majority of users agree, but a small number disagree, we will consider whether we can withdraw the minority contribution and then proceed with the new licence.
We will make every reasonable effort to contact contributors, especially those who have made substantial contributions. Because, at heart, the new licence offers the same elements as the original - open, attribution, and share-alike - we may take the view that those who have made small contributions, but cannot be contacted, would relicence their data under the new licence. We will enable them to contact us at a later date.
How does this affect Wikipedia and other projects that want to use our maps?
There is no change. They can continue to do exactly the same as they do now. Open licences such as the GFDL and CC-BY-SA allow their work to be used in conjunction with other open licences (often as a 'Collective Work' or as 'mere aggregation').
For maps, the Open Database Licence is actually closer than CC-BY-SA to the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation. This is because the definition requires that "where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file... all underlying source data should be available alongside the work".
I have more questions!
As questions are asked and answered, we will add them to these pages.
If you need to ask a specific question then send an email to legal@osmfoundation.org or subscribe to the legal-talk mailing list.