Licence Type/Idea2

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

To vote, add a line of text with your signature (~~~~) and use some of the following phrases to make vote-counting easier

  • (Disagree | Neutral | Undecided | Agree)
  • (Not important | Relatively important | Very important)

Notes

  • More detailed opinions and arguments are welcome, as are suggestions for different ways of phrasing the question.
  • You may change your own vote, but must not touch anyone else's vote or comment.
  • You cannot change questions that have been voted on already, but you may add additional questions to the end of the list.

Question: It should be possible to combine the data with non-free data

  • Agree otherwise no company will ever be able to use it for maps, or navigation systems. Bruce89 11:04, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree because OSM will get no feedback from companies and become just a cheap data source. Imi 20:25, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, Very Important Many useful use cases are combining data from OSM with data that can not be shared. Google Maps is just one example of these -- The idea that someone should not be able to place a tube map over the OSM data if she has licensing rights (but no copyright control) over the tube data is just silly.
  • Agree, useful and creative works may include a lot of data that would not be widely interesting. Forcing inclusion of that data in OSM could be a burden. Rw 00:22, 28 September 2006 (BST)

Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree, only under certain condition (LGPL style. Need discussion). Wawet76 02:02, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, as long as modifications/additions to OSM data have to be public Wollschaf 02:34, 26 Jul 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree, this question is ambiguous since there are two ways you can combine - making a derivative work, and packaging together. The former should always be "shared alike", the latter is fair game. Modifications to OSM data must remain public. TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, as long as OSM attributed. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, Very Important It may be a nice vision to have a world with non "non-free" data but we do not (yet...) have the clout to force others to change their license to "free" just so that their data may be combined with ours. There is a lot of non-free data out there, and if it cannot be used together with OSM data (be that applications, layers, mashups...) then we force lots of people to dump OSM because they have no way of influencing the license of the other data they want to combine. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, because it allows OSM data to be used in many more circumstances (some of which will feed back changes, some of which won't; the data will grow either way).
  • Agree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC) because it maximizes the usefulness of the work we do for the project, and in the long term will help to grow the project by making OSM the hub of all those other projects
  • Agree, very important. Most maps in practical applications other than routing will have to use mixed data sources. These data sources are in most cases not compatible with share-alike models, so we have a huge database which is mostly useless.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: Anyone using OSM data should be prohibited from adding additional limitations on its copyability

  • Agree otherwise the data would could be stolen without attribution. Bruce89 20:03, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I'd say everyone has to use exact our license so we not get outcoded by a bigger one with less sense for freedom. Imi 20:25, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree in principle, but needs more discussion on practicalities. I'm a bit concerned about requiring an "identical license", in case it makes us incompatible with other free projects. e.g. GPL code can be used in projects with many different types of copyleft license[1] - CC data can't be used in any project that's not CC. Ojw 21:47, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree, I don't see anything worthwhile in this. If people want the data, they can always come to the source. Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
The data could have been modified. This clause ensure that we could use an enhanced version of our data to update our data Wawet76 03:14, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Wawet76 02:49, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. As crschmidt says, you can always come to the source. But even if such a condition is imposed, it's very important to me as a cartographer that any "viral" clause applies only to data (factual), not to maps (artistic). Insisting on the latter (i.e. if you draw a map using OSM data, you have to share the design of the map, not just the data it uses) is equivalent to saying "any program that uses OSM data must itself be GPLed", and that, I think, is unacceptable. (See here for a way this could be achieved through a "source code" provision.) Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, but only for the actual map data. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree, since you can always go to the source. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, as Frederik points out you are not acheiving anything with this restriction (if OSM data is forked, that fork will become less useful over time rather than more - if you need OSM data for some project, you will always use the definitive version rather than a fork).
  • Disagree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), because no-one can take away the freeness of the OSM data just by making _their_ copy less free. Others adding extra restrictions to _their_ copy is virtually irrelevant; at worst it's harmless and at best it reinforces the perception that the original free OSM version is the valuable one.
  • Disagree, relatively important. Different businesses need different licensing models. The data source will always be free. But why not letting people earn money and make a living with that if they are smart enough to use the data?--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: It should be possible for someone to find locations using our data, and then use that location under their choice of license

Please explain this or better point to an explanation

  • Agree Bruce89 20:03, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Example: If someone comes home after visiting all the pubs in Nottingham, looks-up their locations relative to roads on OSM (i.e "I know The Bell is on the north corner of Market Square, and OSM tells me what lat/long that is"), and publishes their list of pubs on OpenPubMap.com, should they be able to do so without having to use our license? Ojw 21:51, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Another example: OSM creates well-documented attributes that have street address ranges, and someone then creates a tool which can query these ranges, a la Geocoder.us, to determine locations: What license should these locations be placed under? (Some of this comes back to the question: can you copyright facts?) Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. For me it's obvious. But if somes find usefull to clarify this in the license, why not. Wawet76 02:49, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, Very important. Freethepostcode is the best example. At present, under CC-By-SA, any postcodes plotted by reference to an OSM map are a derived work and thus can't be used in the Freethepostcode data set. Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, but can we even prevent people from doing this? The location is a fact that cannot be copyrighted, unless it's a deliberate error, surely? TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, Free the postcode is a good example. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, we don't lose anything by allowing that, and it is really hurting to have to show other cool projects the door just because they have a slightly different "incompatible" choice of licence. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, OSM is a collection of facts.
  • Agree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), let's not fall into the same trap as our predecessors who tried to "own" knowledge
  • Agree. With the attempt to secure rights on the atomic level of data we act on the same level as the people who sue ringtone abuse on cellphones.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: Anyone using our data should be required to inform their users or customers

  • Agree as I think that OSM itself should get attribution, but not individual contributors, otherwise it would be very difficult to use OSM data. Bruce89 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I don't care about attribution. I care about data. Imi 20:25, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think they should be required to tell people that they are free to copy the data, so that end users are aware of their rights and their opportunities (e.g. to correct errors, or to do neat stuff). It may be useful to tell them how to access that data in a format they can easily use. However, I'm not particularly concerned about "advertising", or requiring OSM logos on derivative maps simply to promote OSM.
  • Agree, I think that like all other data providers, OpenStreetMap should receive attribution for contributions to a dataset. However, I think there needs to be a technical consideration as to what 'attribution' means in a case where the data is provided by dozens or hundreds of users. Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. At choice: all contributors to the data used, or a link to OSM website. Wawet76 02:49, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree if reasonable attribution is defined. TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Agree. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Neutral, I would make that a "should be asked to inform...". I think attribution is nice to have but I'd rather see people doing it of their own volition than just to comply with the letters of the license. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, if OSM data is used for some purpose, I don't see any problem in having to state where the data came from.
  • Disagree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), most users will attribute the source anyway, but if we require it then there may be some unusual formats for which full attribution is impractical (and the project would waste lots of time worrying about these corner cases).
  • Undecided. That depends on the use of data. When a map for a book is created, it is self-evident that an attribution is placed. In other where this is not very practical there should be no need to include an attribution. And who really gains through a forced attribution? I can sleep peacefully without it.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: The data should be public domain

  • Undecided but consider it an important question. Do the benefits of unrestricted data outweigh the problems of a proprietary project fork? Ojw 19:44, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC) Disagree - allowing OSM data to be published in a form that can't be copied, would undermine the spirit of the project. Ojw 20:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree ("Yet another google data source") Imi 20:25, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree It is too liberal, some other project could steal the data and claim it was theirs. Bruce89 11:08, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree I think that Public Domain is an acceptable choice for the license, although I feel that in this case, the OSMF should put forth effort to establish a way to obtain other datasets through an API similar to OSM's, so long as they can be edited, to allow the same kind of work that occurs on OSM to occur on other datasets. Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Impossible in France. And if you talk about a license considered close to the DP (X11, BSD...), I also disagree. Wawet76 02:49, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I don't hold with the Google argument. Google et al aren't going to be interested in using our data until (a) it's complete for large portions of the world, (b) it's reliable, (c) it's consistent. Until then, it's far too much effort for them to process it, to manage the reputation loss from faulty unguaranteed data, and to integrate it with their existing sources. Once we have the whole world at top quality, then they'll be interested - but by that stage, what do we care? Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree It is safer not to. A company could take the data, create a better (shiny) interface, and make OSM obsolete by attracting all new users, but imposing restrictions on newly added data. Wollschaf 02:34, 26 Jul 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree, this is legally treacherous ground and we should prevent people from "cashing out" without contributing anything back. TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree, I would support a CC-BY licence. I can't see any proper commercial support without it. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, Currently we want unrestricted map data but we put restrictions on what we make. If someone uses our data and makes a better interface thats great. If they impose restrictions on it that people naively ignore then we accept it or do some marketing. If someone takes our map data and adds to it with more restrictive licence, there will always be people who want that map on a less restrictive licence, and inevitably some of them will be willing to collect it. --Rickm 20:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I do not see any danger of losing out to anybody, and I believe that nothing can match PD in encouraging creativity. I want our data to be like sunlight - it "just is there" and you can use it for anything without having to ask. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The issue is that there are potential sources out there that could give us large amounts of data (eg governments) but they want to be protected from liability. This cannot be done with public domain. Mmather 20:10, 15 October 2007 (BST)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, the more restrictions there are on using OSM data, the less useful it becomes.
  • Agree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), I understand the fears of those who oppose this, but in practise it wouldn't be a problem. Some users are sure to make their copy of OSM data uncopyable, but in the long run they will lose out to their competitors who participate fully in the public domain ecosystem.
  • Agree, very important. What would we really lose if the data would be public domain? In fact, we could only win attribution and new partners. There are millions of uses and ideas for geographic data, but limitations everywhere. Let's make the map of the world as free as the world itself should be.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, people should be able to use the data for any purpose without any restrictions. PW 12:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: Anyone modifying OSM data should be required to publish their version in a format that can be recombined with OSM data

I assume, this does not mean someone is forced to publish at all, but if he publish, he has to do in compatible format.

  • Agree Any changes should be published in OSM format, or in another format that can be converted back to the OSM format, provided the code is available for such a conversion. Bruce89 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree Imi 20:25, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
I suppose an example is (and this might require an extra question): if someone sells an in-car navigation system that uses OSM data they've cleaned-up, should there be some mechanism to force them to publish that data? Ojw 21:59, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be important to force them to publish their changes, but only if the data itself was modified, not just subsets of it being taken out. Bruce89 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. Wawet76 02:49, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This requires a lot of thought wrt applicability to paper maps. Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree The data should be published in an documented, unscrambled way. The license should not impose limitations on any additions to the data structure that may be ahead of OSM development. As long as a converter can be written without reverse engineering, it's fine. Wollschaf 02:34, 26 Jul 2006 (BST)
  • Agree'. TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree, This may limit use such as automatic navigation systems etc. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree, because there are endless ways of circumventing this and making re-integration of data into OSM impossible or actually dodging the letters of the license. I'd rather have people do this freely than forcedly. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, although with reservations since this can easily be circumvented. I think in principle it is a good idea to request that changes be fed back to improve the core data, but in practice I suspect a raw .osm dump if "here are our changes, you figure out how to merge them in" will never get merged.
  • Disagree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), because it's not worth the hassle of worrying about it. In the long run, users who make it easy for their improvements to be fed back into the dataset will benefit by avoiding the need to constantly re-integrate their changes into each new version of OSM data, so the whole thing is self-sustaining anyway.
  • Disagree, very important. For these not familiar with geographic software: there is a multitude of versions and formats for geographic software and data out there. It is already very hard to combine this data in daily business. The need to publish this data in OSM format would be a) very time- and work-consuming, making it not realistic in business, b) would be technically hard to impossible sometimes and c) would not make very much sense for some data. For example who would be interested in publishing shipping routes of a company except from its competitors?--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Question: We need to disclaim liability for the data

  • Disagree see below comment. Bruce89 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree We can disclaim liability for the "freeness" of the data (not copyrighted origin), but not for the correctness or incorrect usage. Imi 20:25, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's not going to come back to me, so I can't claim that I have any stake in this question. Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I consider disclaimers as a recognition of human stupidity. But as we see stupid lawsuit everyday, let's put a disclaimer... (soupir). Wawet76 02:49, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. But doesn't have to be part of the licence. Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree'. TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, Very important. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Neutral, disclaiming liability seems to be one of those modern-day American things. No judge in their right mind could hold anybody responsible for our data if they understand how it works. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. Actually, we need to disclaim liability for Open Street Map and for the contributors. This matters, again, because there are potential sources out there that could give us large amounts of data (eg governments) but they want to be protected from liability. Mmather 20:10, 15 October 2007 (BST)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, not because it has any practical meaning but simply because people expect it.
  • Disagree RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), because if you don't "Claim" in the first place, then you don't need to "Disclaim".

Question: People should be able to use the data commercially

  • Agree otherwise no company will ever be able to use it. Bruce89 20:38, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I don't care about people trying to make money. Imi 20:25, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I would be happy if I could earn my life from something related to free geographic data ! Wawet76 02:49, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Everyone has to earn a living somehow, including cartographers! The Red Hat "services" model favours the work of technicians over that of artists and that, I think, makes for an unequal society. Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Usage of the data is good. Additions flow back to OSM. Wollschaf 02:34, 26 Jul 2006 (BST)
  • Agree'. TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, I would support a CC-BY licence. I can't see any proper commercial support without it. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, Very important, as I believe that a strong creative force is with entrepreneurs, and we can profit from that. With this goes the requirement that we must not have a license that makes any commercial work based on OSM data a financial suicide mission (Quote from today's version of Legal FAQ: You can charge any amount of money you want for any service or data you provide. However, the data (or service) that is derived from OSM data must be licensed under our license so don't be surprised if other people show up doing the same service you do but for free. - This is not enabling people to use our data commercially.) --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, the motiviation for improving OSM data becomes much stronger if you can allow people to develop a business on top of it, and it makes it much easier to make OSM the de-facto choice for sourcing map data.
  • Agree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), because that way we all get the benefit of better commercial products (cheaper, more up-to-date, more innovative, and in the future probably more accurate too).
  • Agree, very important. Free data only for free use is a wonderful utopia. Sadly our world moves the other way round. But if we want to do something good, we have to adapt a little bit to the evil commercial world. And again, the best thing would be that some of these people who use the data may also contribute to it. So we should take the chance. Think of an OpenOffice.org which could only be used for your private mail. Ridiculous, isn't it?--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Question: People should be able to fork the project

  • Agree in principle, but it might fragment the effort, unless all the data in the derivative was able to be contributed back. Any changes or additions to the base OSM data should be published in a compatible format with the same licence as OSM. Bruce89 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree (Very important). Preventing forks (if ever possible) would mean to dictate the usage of the data. Imi 20:25, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Share-Alike/Copyleft is here to prevent a fork from being more restrictive. Wawet76 11:43, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree'. TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Agree. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, it is undesirable but it will help protect freedom because even if the whole thing was taken over by a herd of apes, someone would fork and keep up the good things. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, how would you stop them?
  • Agree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), by analogy to the free software world where serious forks are rare but have sometimes been the only way that an ailing project can be saved. For example, the gcc project eventually switched across to the previously-hostile egcs fork.
  • Agree. Forks sometimes bring wonderful new ideas and solutions.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: An OSM user should be able to mark their contributions as being dual-licensed

  • Agree Bruce89 20:03, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, relatively important - if someone's personal preference is for less restrictions, why should we prevent them using the OSM systems to publish their geodata under alternate licenses (such as public domain) so long as that data is also published under the OSM license? (Proposed_features/Dual licensing idea) Ojw 10:23, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, so long as "dual-license" is key here.Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Well... I agree that OSM website could provide this to users. But there is no need to talk about it in an OSM license. Wawet76 02:49, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, but may be difficult to implement. Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree', but implementation could be difficult. They're always able to do this anyway, putting their data elsewhere under different terms. TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Agree. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, see comments/problems on implementation in Proposed_features/Dual licensing idea
  • Disagree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, I think there should be a single licence held by a single body (the foundation) to which contributors assign their ownership (or similar). Allowing 10K contributors to use 10K different licences simply makes it impossible to use the data under anything but the common licence (so in practice, unless someone has mapped an entire area by themselves, allowing multiple licences just makes things more complicated for people who want to use the data).
  • Neutral, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), it's not likely to be particularly useful, but it's harmless.
  • Agree. I don't think that the data I enter into OSM is an exclusive donation from me to OSM.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Question: The CC-BY-SA authors have sufficient legal expertise to trust with writing a license for OSM data

  • Disagree, see commment below for reasons why. Bruce89 12:34, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Actually I meant are the existing CC licenses robust enough - it's not like the GPL which has survived being at the centre of a major legal battle between tech companies. And several people have commented that the CC-BY-SA legal code is unclear or inconsistant
Can CC-BY-SA 2.0 be trusted to hold-up in later years when there will be millions of pounds' worth of data at stake and many companies trying to find loopholes in the license? Ojw 12:25, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree The creative commons license was not designed for use for geodata, and many of the cases simply do not apply. Crschmidt 02:13, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree, Very important. Creative Commons is for creative/artistic works: geodata is neither of those things, it's a faithful recording of what's on the ground. The best-qualified body to write an OSM licence is the OSM community. Richard 09:29, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree'. The OSM community is in no way qualified. OSM should seek legal advice on the applicability of CC-BY-SA to OSM, we should try to avoid an incompatible license if at all possible, and we should steer well clear of writing our own license without seeking legal advice. There are tens, probably hundreds, of lawyers worldwide working on the CC licenses so it would be madness to lose that expertise and write an even more questionable license of our own! Also, it's not as though "the arts" and "creative works" fit into a neat licensing box :) TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree, that's one of the reasons I like PD because it is very simple. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007, I don't think CC-by-SA works well for geodata (what does it cover: the list of lat/lons, tiles rendered from that list, queries performed against that list, etc?), and I think a PD/BSD licence would be clearer.
  • Agree. RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), they have a wealth of expertise in the field compared to a lawyer trying to draft one single specialized open data license.
  • Undecided. If they are able to make a license which doesn't prevent every useful application of the data like many other CC licenses do, they are welcome to do that.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: OSM data should be free to use for any purpose

  • Agree Bruce89 11:16, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Agree that's what I would call freedom, and I support that, even if I can think of a number of uses that I would not like. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007.
  • Agree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), this is what drew many of us to the project in the first place, i.e. the lack of ability to use other maps for our purposes.
  • Agree, very important. Free geodata is a very rare good. OSM is the only project big enough to make a difference here. So we have only got this one chance, except Navteq decides to make its data Public Domain.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Question: Applying mathematical operations to OSM data creates a new work, not a simple copy

e.g. if someone reprojects the data, or converts straight-line segments to bezier curves using a fitting algorithm, or detects and fixes wrong-way segments, is that covered under the "what you must do when you modify the data" part of any license? Ojw 10:51, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree it would be a derivative work, as the OSM data is being used to make it. Bruce89 11:16, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007. I don't think this question makes sense; if I reduce the precision from 7 digits to 6, is that a mathematical operation? What if I convert it to a shapefile, which uses doubles, which introduces some noise into the least significant digits - is that a mathematical operation?
  • Disagree RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), it would be a derivative work, although the distinction wouldn't matter if OSM data was public domain.
  • Undecided. Depends on the amount of mathematical change. If I multiply the width of every street by 1.2, this is certainly no new work. But OSM will never have the legal possibilities to deal with hundreds of such inquiries.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Question: Geodata is similar enough to software that a software license can be used with minor modifications

e.g. GPL, with a note saying that "source code means a list of nodes, segments and ways, and compiled code means a rendered map"

  • Disagree I don't think this would work. Bruce89 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. It is data which is processed by software.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Question: The license should be easy for the general public to understand immediately

Consider that journalist who wrote about our "free data" project, but didn't understand that our license prohibited him from doing many things (such as printing a map without attribution). How can he explain in a 200-word article what our license means?

  • Agree, but less important than other considerations. "Public domain map" is an easy soundbite that people will understand. "CC-BY-SA 2.0" takes quite a bit of legal knowedge and background knowledge (e.g. the history of Free Software) to understand. Ojw 13:49, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. The license should be written in legalese and accessible in a nutshell (normal language) for people to understand what it is about. Wollschaf 02:34, 26 Jul 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, but other considerations (such as the legal impossibility of the public domain scenario, and the problems of cashing out) are more important for me. TomChance 13:11, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  • Agree
  • Agree A link to the real licence on the web would suffice. Bruce89 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007. I don't think we currently understand the implications of our own licence.
  • Agree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), the simpler the better. Public Domain is the best here, although the various CC licenses are becoming more widely understood and would be OK. A long, complicated custom license will be too complicated for most people to come to grips with.
  • Agree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Question: The license should still work if OSM is forked

Should we avoid terms like "attribution may consist of a link to openstreetmap " which assume that OSM will always be the main project.

  • Agree otherwise changes will not be contributed back. Bruce89 17:39, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I wouldn't want a fork to have to contribute back - what if their data was flawed or modified in some unknown way? jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree any fork should be allowed a fresh start if they so desire. --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007.
  • Disagree. See answer of Frederik Ramm.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Question: Attribution requirements should be kept short and general

Do you have a detailed license with terms like "for in-car navigation systems you must display OSM logos filling no less than 25% of screen for 3 seconds on startup and a prominent help button which displays the OSM license" or do you have a simple license like "you must make clear the source of map data"

  • Comment: I think that the startup thing would be too much, a logo on the box of the product (where it says TeleAtlas just now), and a comment about OSM in the licence. Bruce89 17:39, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, Please keep it short and simple. This covers things like mobile phones etc with small screens. I wouldn't want the licence to have to be displayed 24/7 on screen. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, we will never be able to predict all possible uses and make special rules. And the more detail you have on what people must do exactly, the hollower your claim to be "freee". --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007. The attribution should simply mention OSM (either with a logo or text, what makes sense will depend on the circumstances and the examples we provide), and refer to the web site for all further info.
  • Agree, RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), and bear in mind that some aggregations or composite works will need to display multiple attributions, so let's keep ours short or optional.
  • Agree, very important. A work where OSM data is included, for example a book or a webpage, should consist of content and not of long attributions and licenses.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: It should be possible to get OSM map data off a hardware device which comes preloaded with it

  • Unsure - would we be forcing people to put comms interfaces on devices that don't otherwise need them? Should there be something to encourage hardware manufacturers to include the map data on a CD in the box? Ojw 14:19, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - I don't think the optimised and compressed data would be any use to anyone, but there should be a way of getting the modified OSM data that the data is made from. Bruce89 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree as modified OSM data has to be accessible in general, this should not include any hardware interfaces. Distribution over internet or CD is enough. Portable devices will not use XML format, so an additional clause requiring the data to be in a readable file format (to reintegrate with OSM) will perhaps prevent any use in such cases. Wollschaf 02:34, 26 Jul 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree, It should not be a requirement. This limits use again - think simple embedded pic projects etc. jonc 00:12, 27 Sept 2006 (BST)
  • Disagree --Frederik Ramm 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007. If you want the OSM data, go to www.openstreetmap.org.
  • Disagree RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree, very important. That assumes every hardware device uses data in unchanged OSM format and it has to have an USB connection. Not practical.--TopS 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, SimonZ 15:26, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Question: The benefits of a customised geodata license outweigh the risks of using a new license that hasn't been tested by other projects

  • Agree Bruce89 17:39, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe - depends how good the proposed new license is. Ojw 20:40, 8 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe Certainly a specific license for geodata will contain less loopholes for funny interpetations. To be court-proof this will require very expensive lawyers. Specific licensing terms will require a lot of discussion, which might not end at all. Wollschaf 02:34, 26 Jul 2006 (BST)
  • Agree, User:riad 25 Oct 2007. I think a geodata licence is much more likely to achieve its purpose - look at the number of "well, this might be OK and might not" qualifications that a licence like CC-by-SA requires in the Legal FAQ.
  • Disagree RogerBrowne 11:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC), it's just asking for trouble. In the software world, after a period of license expansion, license consolidation has started to occur and it's a good thing.