Uk:Open Database License FAQ

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Що мені як учаснику потрібно зробити, щоб змінити ліцензію?

Якщо ви дійсний учасник – зараз вам не треба нічого робити для цього. Фундація OSM незабаром запитає вас, чи погоджуєтесь ви переліцензувати свою існуючу роботу за новою ліцензією.

Якщо ви зареєструвались після 12 травня 2010 року, під час входу до вашого облікового запису вас попросять погодитись як на поточну ліцензію (CC-BY-SA), так і на запропоновану нову ліцензію. Тому не потрібно нічого робити. Дякуємо за реєстрацію!

Яку альтернативну ліцензію рекомендує OSMF?

Ліцензією, яку ми пропонуємо прийняти, це Відкрита ліцензія для баз даних (Open Database Licence – ODbL). "Open Database Licence (ODbL) – це ліцензійна угода, що дозволяє користувачам вільно поширювать, змінювати та використати цю Базу даних, зберігаючи цю саму свободу для інших."

Для того щоб продовжити, існує набір Правил участі, відповідно до яких мапер погоджується на те, що він "робить внесок у вигляді власної роботи" та надає право Фундаціх OSM розповсюджувати свою роботу. В свою чергу, Фундація OSM обіцяє не розповсюджувати його роботу на умовах інших ніж обумовлено в ліцензії (або інших відкритих ліцензіях, обраних користувачем, якщо в такому буде потреба).

Фундація OpenStreetMap співпрацювала з авторами ліцензії, щоб забезпечити невелику кількість змін, щоб ми мали найкращу можливу ліцензію на OSM. Дякуємо всім, хто вносив пропозиції та допомагав забезпечити придатність використання ODbL.

Яка користь OpenStreetMap від запропонованої ліцензії?

Запропонована ліцензія:

  • пропонує більший захист даних, оскільки вона застосовується до авторських прав, прав на базу даних і є контрактом.
  • створена спеціально для даних. Вона чіткіще визначає, що ви можете або не можете робити з даними. Це дозволить більшої кількості осіб користуватись відкритими даними OSM, та чітко відокремлює їх від закритих джерел геопросторових даних.
  • вимагає, щоб ті, хто поєднує наші дані зі своїми даними, надалі передавали їх OSM. Це означає, що ми матимемо більше відкритих даних. Відповідно до поточної ліцензії, кінцевий результат має бути доступним до копіювання (наприклад, готова мапа), але не сирці.

Чи можна побачити всі відмінності?

Так, весь перелік міститься тут – Open Data License.

Основні моменти:

  • Явним чином зазначаються права на бази даних та угоди в тих країнах, де авторське право не поширюється на фактичні дані.
  • Посилання (атрибуція) на OpenStreetMap, а не на окремих учасників;
  • Якщо ви поширюєте дані OSM разом з іншими даними, ви маєте зробити ці дані доступними;
  • Якщо ви створюєте "інтегроване рішення" (поєднання ваших даних з геоданими), вимога поширення на тих же умовах поширюється лише на геодані.

По суті, ми вважаємо, що це "те, що ми мали на увазі, коли говорили by-sa".

How will the switch take place?

The plan, essentially, is to switch license from our existing licence (CCBYSA 2.0) to ODbL in five stages.

  • Stage 1 - Get suggestions for any changes required in addition to those identified by the OSMF. Done
  • Stage 2 - Engage the licence's author to amend the licence as required. Done
  • Stage 3 - Ensure that new users sign up to both licences. Done
  • Stage 4 - E-mail all OSM users who have contributed data with the option of re-licensing their data
  • Stage 5 - If enough users agree, remove any data from any users who do not respond or respond negatively (the hard bit)

See Open Data License/Implementation Plan for details.

What's wrong with the current licence?

OSM currently uses the Creative Commons Share-Alike/Attribution 2.0 licence, or CC-BY-SA for short. 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.

How have OpenStreetMap users been consulted?

The licence change process was started, and has been entirely run, by OpenStreetMap volunteers. The OpenStreetMap Foundation board, and its Licence Working Group, are made up of mappers like you. Indeed, people with concerns about the licence have been invited to talk to or even join the group.

There have been posts on the OpenGeoData project blog, to the mailing lists, on this wiki, and in other channels. Discussion about the licence started soon after the project was launched and has continued pretty much constantly. It has also been discussed at OSM events such as the State of the Map conference, hack days and local mapping parties. Again, those working on this are only volunteers and cannot promise to have communicated absolutely perfectly at all times, but they have done so with the intent of openness and good faith. Please do get involved in helping to spread the message.

Bear in mind too that the new licence is not a fait accompli. You own any rights in your data. No-one can relicense it without your consent. The project will only move to the new licence if enough users like you agree!

Is this being driven by commercial users?

Absolutely not. The problems with the CC-BY-SA licence were identified long before any companies existed using OpenStreetMap data.

The proposed new licence is still a share-alike licence, just like the existing one. The detailed changes as to what you have to share could equally be viewed as friendly or hostile to commercial users. There is no intention of letting commercial interests exploit OSM without contributing back, nor of making it harder for them to use our data.

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, the OSM Foundation believes that 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. However, we are giving users the option to formally declare their own contributions as public domain, similar to the informal scheme that already exists on this wiki.

Why aren't you changing to another Creative Commons licence?

We have consulted with Creative Commons who have kindly given some 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?

When we started, there was no open data licence available. 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.

Will this change how people access OSM data?

No, users will be able to access the data without clicking through the license. To make it clear that users agree to the contract, the license will be displayed on the OSM website, and a link to the license will be included in the XML data files.

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. The ODbL does not place any restrictions on how a Produced Work (such as a map as a JPG image) is used. It only requires a notice such as "Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL)". So the image can be released under CC-BY-SA or other license terms, provided that the database used to generate it is made available under the terms of the Open Database Licence.

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".

If I disagree, will my data be lost forever?

No! All contributions made under CC-BY-SA (the original licence) will continue to be available for download from https://planet.openstreetmap.org/ , in a final CC-BY-SA planet file containing all the contributions made up to the 'switchover' date. This file will always be available under the original licence.

Contributions where the mapper has not agreed to the new licence, however, will not be available in later ODbL-licensed planet files, nor from the main OpenStreetMap API. (There is nothing stopping anyone from making an API using the CC-BY-SA data, of course!)

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, subscribe to the legal-talk mailing list, or use the discussion page here.