> On Sep 23, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote: > > I confess that I'm not sure what to say to this. You're asserting that > running a geocoding business with ODbL attaching to the results is no big > deal, that "all the use cases you can think of" seem fine. Mapbox is > _actually running_ a geocoding business and telling you that we would like to > use OSM in it but can't sell a geocoding service that has ODbL attached to > the results.
That’s a fait point, however on the other hand, there are many other businesses who’re also actually running who don’t have these issues. There are now hundreds of businesses big and small using OSM seriously, who’ve had legal people look at it. Why aren’t they all here independently complaining about this? If it’s that just one early business is running in to this first, then we should wait and see if others come along independently and also have this issue. However it looks unlikely as there are many others already, including two or three other VC-backed companies with double-digit raises. For reference, call this the SNIFF TEST. > And no one has yet offered any examples by which ODbL attaching to geocoding > results has led to contributions that improved OSM. Or contributions at all > (the prospect of Randy's tide station data notwithstanding). Another fair point, however it’s also hard to see who would pay for OSM geocoding in the first place when there’s almost no data compared to proprietary maps. Do we have any examples of these people waiting to pay for data that doesn’t exist? Or, would they only start contributing data in to OSM if we changed the license? If we’re positing that a) they exist and b) they would start contributing with a license change then this is a chicken and egg situation. Either we could change the license and they start contributing (chicken) (which is difficult to do), or, given the levels of passion on this mailing list it may be far, far easier for them to start this contribution first and then we think about changing the license (egg). It would also demonstrate both the existence and their contribution (and faith) whereas the other way around (chicken) we’d demonstrate people willing to pay for it, but they may not start contributing data after we change the license. I’ll call this the CHICKEN OR EGG TEST. If we could pass the SNIFF TEST and the CHICKEN OR EGG TEST with real data I think I’d be convinced along with a lot of people here. We all want OSM to be the best map of the world and have the most uses/users. Or most of us do :-) > I realize you'll disagree, but I'm left with the same sense of what's > achievable and desirable for a geocoding guidance. Enable more geocoding. > Protect OSM's assets. Abandon the impractical goal of compelling users to > share their results. It’s a frustrating discussion all around, but we should avoid calling ShareAlike impractical since it will just cause more froth. Let’s agree at least on the spirit of the license, which I think you’re trying to do. Best Steve _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
