
OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike - lxbarth
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221
======
hmsimha
I stopped reading after the first example. If there are no restrictions on the
usage, Google can just use all of OSM's data without having to share anything
in return. The real selling point for OSM, in my opinion, is that by
crowdsourcing its data it has the potential to far surpass the quality of any
other dataset. If there are no restrictions on its usage, this hope becomes
futile -- the gatekeepers of privately owned datasets will reap the benefits
of contributions to OSM without offering anything in return.

~~~
exelius
This is the GPL argument applied to data; and while for GPL there's a certain
tinfoil-hat logic that has been unfortunately proven right by the NSA, I don't
know that it holds for OSM since one data set plus another dataset just makes
a superset. That benefits everyone.

There are companies out there that go to great expense to create their own
maps: Google is one of them, but others exist as well. I don't think OSM is
trying to be the One True Map (tm). In that sense, I see no problem with
Google using OSM's data and not sharing back: it still fulfills OSMs mission
of making mapping better for everyone. Yeah, OSM alone isn't as high quality
as OSM+Google, but who cares? Eventually, many companies will likely decide
that the cost of maintaining their own mapping databases is just too high and
start committing to OSM instead. Probably never Google, but there are other,
smaller companies out there without the resources and self-driving cars that
Google has.

Tl;dr: OSM is not hurt by allowing other parties to maintain their own
datasets at their own expense. Inevitably some will choose to just contribute
to OSM, which is good for everyone.

~~~
crististm
A... What? So _because_ Google builds their maps at their expense they are
_entitled_ to use OSM and you see no problem with them not sharing back?

~~~
nateabele
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent)

~~~
1ris
No, this was just a pointed paraphrasing of exelius' argument.

------
1ris
Oh, the good old BSD vs GPL religious debate.

I just want to add: If i wanted my map data available "to the industry" (that
BSD supporters claim can't use the GPL model) I would have used google map
maker and not OSM. And i did not make this decision by accident, but because i
believe in free software and free data. Please respect that. I think with
dropping the copyleft osm makes itself superfluous and it will get replaced by
the commercial products it once wanted to replace. There won't be a reason to
choose osm over google anymore.

~~~
tonfa
It would still be _very_ different. If you contribute to google mapmaker, only
google could use it. If you contribute to a non-share-alike OSM, anyone can
use it...

~~~
toomuchtodo
> If you contribute to a non-share-alike OSM, anyone can use it..

I want those who agree with the project's principals to use the dataset, not
just anyone. OSM isn't just a collection of data, its open collaboration.
Removing share-alike breaks the model of that collaboration.

------
stipsf415
(Throwaway because I work in the field)

It's no surprise this is coming from an employee of MapBox. Despite their
incredible support of the OSM community through technical improvements, they
are now a venture-backed company and are clearly looking for a massive exit of
some sort. The author mentions Google, but it's actually MapBox that is best-
positioned to basically co-opt OSM and create the dominant interface by which
all users interact with OSM. Without ShareAlike, they are likely to begin
walling off their data, or (just as well) making the underlying OSM
infrastructure pointless in a variety of ways. Imagine if nobody visited or
used Wikipedia directly because some other organization basically robbed of it
relevancy. At first, it could be fine (Yay! Everything is better!), but in
time it could be used to control the data, limit its access, and make the
underlying project pointless. This is a possibility if OSM wasn't SA.

MapBox wasn't in quite such a strategic position when the ODbL debate was
going on, but they were in the community so they could have spoken up then,
but I have no idea if they did.

If you don't believe me, look at the licensing for their formerly-public-
domain satellite imagery: [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/idealab/mapbox-sells-
custom-sat...](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/idealab/mapbox-sells-custom-
satellite-imagery-from-nasa-naip) "The 'Satellite' layer may be used to
produce derivative data for the OpenStreetMap project. All other use for
derivative data is prohibited."

------
A93141

      the assumption that share-alike encourages contribution is a myth
    

OpenWRT is the biggest counterexample I know of. Linksys would not have
released this if they had been using a BSD licensed operating system.

If you want to work on an open source project, but your employer has a
restrictive intellectual property agreement, then a share-alike clause can be
the only thing allowing your work to get out at all. You can show your
employer there's no way they can subvert the license agreement, and if they
distribute it at all, they must use the same copyleft license.

I don't want to see my hard work sold large-scale in consumer electronics,
just to enrich others, without contributing back at all.

~~~
exelius
I think there's a distinction to be made between a data set and executable
code.

~~~
dTal
What would you say is the precise nature of that distinction?

------
raimue
This is a great article! In my opinion these thoughts also apply to software
in general. This is the reason why I prefer BSD licenses over the GPL.

With my code under a BSD license, I just want to improve the world. If anybody
can to use my software, very good! If anybody can mash it up with other code
to create something new, even better!

If they share the resulting code, its awesome! If they don't share it, there's
still something new out there that is helpful for someone and that is still
great!

~~~
1ris
I'd say a lame article. Nth rehash of the BSD vs GPL debate, without adding
anything.

------
pessimizer
I couldn't find any mention of any benefit to OSM in being used as the
baseline for a bunch of proprietary mapping services. Can someone tease it out
for me?

~~~
aray
It really wasn't discussed in the article, but it has a bunch of benefits
we've seen with software like ArcGIS.

When you have _paid_ engineers using tools like OSM, they'll develop more
tools for using it, build extensions. They offer valuable feedback on making
it _more_ attractive to other potential commercial users.

Having a tool like this used commercially, full-time by various teams is a
catalyst, even though it's possible some of the same work would eventually be
done by the open source community in time.

~~~
pessimizer
You mean the paid engineers at the proprietary mapping services, or those who
use data from those proprietary mapping services? I don't understand the
incentive that the former would have to release their tools, and since the
latter wouldn't be working with OSM directly, wouldn't they be building tools
to work with those other services?

A lot of paid engineers work with OSM now, don't we? Ever since google raised
rates, OSM seems to be a big player.

------
oftenwrong
The problem is not OSM, it is the greedy institutions that are scared away by
the idea of having to give anything back.

~~~
CloudMade
And the greedy consultants who mislead ordinary institutions into thinking
that greedy is the way to go.

------
filbertkm
regarding OSM can't use content from Wikipedia... that has nothing to do with
share-alike.

the reason is that stuff like coordinates in wikipedia are widely derived from
Google Maps or Google Earth. OSM community is concerned that is a violation of
database rights or license. Is Google Maps open data? from Wikipedia
perspective, coordinates are just facts and not-copyrightable and the US does
not have database rights, so it's ok; OSM is based in europe where there are
database rights and the community is concerned for other reasons, also and
reluctant to accept such Wikipedia-derived contents into OSM.

~~~
chippy
Also Google has said that their maps are copyrighted, and has a terms of
service/use.

------
davexunit
No! Please keep a copyleft license!

------
wooster
Apple already uses OSM data in their maps app:
[http://gspa21.ls.apple.com/html/attribution.html](http://gspa21.ls.apple.com/html/attribution.html)

------
filbertkm
I would _not_ contribute if companies (e.g. Google) could just take the data
and not give back to OSM.

ODBL isn't perfect but share-alike is important for OSM.

~~~
dingaling
> I would not contribute if companies (e.g. Google) could just take the data
> and not give back to OSM.

Why not? OSM still remains useful and authorative.

I see this in photography circles with Creative Commons. People choosing 'No
Commmercial' clauses so that companies 'can't make money with my work'; but
there is no negative impact on the photographer if a company does so, so why
care?

If Google makes $100 million with my photograph, or with my OSM contributions,
then that's dandy. It doesn't affect me and it doesn't undermine OSM.

~~~
Vik1ng
It's not about google making money with it they can already do that today.

> It doesn't affect me and it doesn't undermine OSM.

Just that that's exactly what it does. Google takes OSM data, combines it with
their great services and gives nothing back and now there is less initiative
for people to use OSM.

> People choosing 'No Commmercial' clauses so that companies 'can't make money
> with my work'; but there is no negative impact on the photographer if a
> company does so, so why care?

Yes there is. If you give it out for free when google would otherwise had
payed it means that some photographer didn't get payed because you have it
away for fee. So overall photographers befit if they all don''t give it out
for free, because that means the company has to pay one of the if they need a
picture.

------
jpollock
From what I remember, the US doesn't allow "sweat of the brow" arguments to
protect databases.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_law)

So, while the data would be protected in other places, such as the UK, it
wouldn't necessarily be protected in the US.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
That's why ODbL has a contract layer as well as a copyright layer - so that it
applies in the US as well as the UK.

------
greglindahl
OSM collects factual data, so the license really doesn't matter much... the
copyright on it won't stand up in court.

~~~
1ris
As for every legal argument on the internet: Surprise, there are different
countries with different laws.

But I guess you are mostly right, for many countries this is the case. OTOH
there is a reason OSM prohibits scanning and tracing other commercial maps.

~~~
greglindahl
That's a completely reasonable policy for OSM to avoid getting sued by
commercial map data providers -- plus I'm sure OSM would hate to make an
argument in court that could be used to invalidate OSM's copyright.

Switching to an open-but-not-share-alike license makes all of this easier.

~~~
1ris
Sorry, I can't follow. On the one hand you say it's not in OSMs interest to
argue in court there is no copyright on maps, on the other you say it's in
their interest to give their copyright up?

~~~
greglindahl
If OSM cares about the share-alike part of their license, they have to
successfully defend their copyright on the data. If OSM moves to open-but-not-
share-alike, they no longer care if their copyright on the facts in their
database is valid.

~~~
1ris
Thanks, I understand that better. I still think it's not a good argument; you
seem to say that if they stopped caring about something there would be less
trouble. That seems pure spinelessness.

------
7952
The OSM licence is quite confusing in it current state. It is hard to
differentiate between "data" and a derived product which are treated
differently.

Maps usually turn into pixels at some point and could be classified as a
produced work regardless of modification. But it is difficult to be sure of
this without talking to a lawyer.

------
milliams
As someone pointed out in the mailing list thread about this, OSM's ODbL is
closer to LGPL than GPL in terms of the strictness of it's share-alike
requirements and its virality.

