Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Hi! No idea what Oliver talked about either, but I work in the automotive industry myself. I can tell you that some of the major players have looked at using OSM data several times. They decided against it primarily because of the lack of a binding tagging scheme and the basic unreliability of the content. If you build an expensive in-car system you need to make guarantees. The amount of work for verifying, completing and bugfixing OSM data is prohibitive. And even if you are willing to contribute all of it to OSM, you could not. If you standardize ambiguous tagging this would be rejected by everybody opposing a binding tagging scheme all this years in the first place. And even if it was successful, by the time you need data for your next map update, there will be many changes and broken stuff again so you have to start over with your verification. But the licence issue was barely touched in those considerations. bye, Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-Isn-t-All-That-Open-Let-s-Change-That-and-Drop-Share-Alike-tp5799574p5800126.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Hi, On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:41:02AM -0400, Phil! Gold wrote: Google appears to do both, probably because they've gotten really good at data conflation. They already pull data from multiple datasets, including proprietary data like Telenav's, public domain data from governments and such, and restricted use data from local governments, and then they integrate GMM contributions on top of that amalgamation. Yes - they stitch together data from multiple sources. But they do it in spatially diverse regions. (For the same datatype - you can intermix different providers for addresses and road geometries although the end product will look broken here and there) Once you turn on editing you cant go back without manual postprocessing. Today you add a street with mapmaker - tomorrow some commercial pre-product has the same street with different topology or probably different attributes. You cant handle this in an automated manner. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 17/mar/2014 um 02:28 schrieb Greg Morgan dr.kludge...@gmail.com: If I need to split a building, the original primary key does not stay with one of the two pieces of the building. Two new buildings are created with two new primary keys. as a side note this is not like you described, the original way id will remain on one of the two pieces (at least with Josm you can also control which) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Alex, Some of the points you continue to make are patently false. 1. There is more open data coming online by the day and we are not compatible Let's take this apart. If the data is open, by which you mean that it would fall into something like the definition of freedomdefined.org, then there are only a few ways in which the ODbL would be incompatible: 1. Requirement for attribution If this were the case, dropping Share-Alike would change nothing 2. Requirement for Share-Alike If this were the case, dropping Share-Alike would make us less compatible 3. An addition requirement on the data If this is the case, it's not open data and thus the statement is false The world is doing more stuff with raw data. Yes, they should do more stuff with Free data, and what they can do has virtually no limitations. OpenStreetMap's problem is that share-alike's diminishing effect on utility is more severe for data than for software. Hyperbole, and as shown previously, based on statements which are just not true. There are unfortunate side effects. It would be nice if OSM were compatible with governments, for example, but unfortunately do to so would grant our non-Free competitors far too much advantage over us. How do I know this to be the case? Because it's happened already. It's already happened that companies like Google have used OSM data, and have bad to take that data down after it was pointed out that the license was incompatible. The minute that OSM data were put out without Share-Alike, we would be utterly demolished by other entities taking OSM data, adding data to it, and then selling enhanced versions. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 17.03.2014 04:53, schrieb Hans Schmidt: If I, as a company, would use some map provider, I would definitely go for at least everywhere a minimum level of coverage instead of only a few places with excellent coverage. There was a comparison about Google and OSM a fow years ago. It showed that even on some non-European countries (e.g. Africa) a lot of citties are mapped better in OSM than Google: at least at that time there was no financial benefit for the commercial map providers to map all these places. Maybe this improved a little bit, but I don't think so... Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
So we're wondering why OpenStreetMap, being better (superior?) than Google in map data, is not used by commercial companies like BMW. Is there a native German on this list who can ask BMW why they're not using OSM? 2014-03-17 21:55 GMT+01:00 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de: Am 17.03.2014 04:53, schrieb Hans Schmidt: If I, as a company, would use some map provider, I would definitely go for at least everywhere a minimum level of coverage instead of only a few places with excellent coverage. There was a comparison about Google and OSM a fow years ago. It showed that even on some non-European countries (e.g. Africa) a lot of citties are mapped better in OSM than Google: at least at that time there was no financial benefit for the commercial map providers to map all these places. Maybe this improved a little bit, but I don't think so... Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Possible reasons: - they don't want their clients to think they're being guided by maps that are not made by professionals (a silly prejudice) - they don't want to tell the world that OpenStreetMap exists by adding attribution to their software UI (possibly due to existing contracts or branding) But I think that's silly: - http://www.navigon.com/portal/uk/kundenservice/faq.html?id=20208453content_identifier=faqpage=28 - http://www.garmin.com/uk/topolight/ - http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/30/telenav-buys-skobbler/ On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Johan C osm...@gmail.com wrote: So we're wondering why OpenStreetMap, being better (superior?) than Google in map data, is not used by commercial companies like BMW. Is there a native German on this list who can ask BMW why they're not using OSM? 2014-03-17 21:55 GMT+01:00 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de: Am 17.03.2014 04:53, schrieb Hans Schmidt: If I, as a company, would use some map provider, I would definitely go for at least everywhere a minimum level of coverage instead of only a few places with excellent coverage. There was a comparison about Google and OSM a fow years ago. It showed that even on some non-European countries (e.g. Africa) a lot of citties are mapped better in OSM than Google: at least at that time there was no financial benefit for the commercial map providers to map all these places. Maybe this improved a little bit, but I don't think so... Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 17.03.2014 23:05, schrieb Johan C: So we're wondering why OpenStreetMap, being better (superior?) than Google in map data, is not used by commercial companies like BMW. Is there a native German on this list who can ask BMW why they're not using OSM? for Navigation it's not only about having roads, there are other data still missing (or not available sufficiently) in OSM: addresses, turn restrictions, lane informations, speed limits, ... BTW: if you talk about navigation in the car industry you have to consider development cycles of 5...10 years = including OSM takes some time. And: it's also about having a tool chain to include and maintain the data into the cars (update) which needs to be developed, despite of the wiki type fancy tagging scheme (compared to Navtec/Nokia an TeleAtlas/TomTom). I'm quite sure that the automotive industry keeps an eye on OSM although there is no official statement. [1];-) BTW car industry: I am aware of talks between an OSMF board member (Oliver) an the German car industry in the past years. But he didn't provide any details at all about the talks = not a very good behavior for an open project, even if you agree to have confidentiality... :-( Best regards, Michael. for [1]: there was e.g. a semi-public talk of an postgraduate here at Munich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Nobody remembers Bosch talk at SOTM Tokyo ? This make me think that the automotive industry is already working on using OSM data in the not so far future... and Bosch already have a bicycle oriented GPS using OSM: http://www.bosch-presse.de/presseforum/details.htm?txtID=6377locale=en 2014-03-18 0:04 GMT+01:00 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de: Am 17.03.2014 23:05, schrieb Johan C: So we're wondering why OpenStreetMap, being better (superior?) than Google in map data, is not used by commercial companies like BMW. Is there a native German on this list who can ask BMW why they're not using OSM? for Navigation it's not only about having roads, there are other data still missing (or not available sufficiently) in OSM: addresses, turn restrictions, lane informations, speed limits, ... BTW: if you talk about navigation in the car industry you have to consider development cycles of 5...10 years = including OSM takes some time. And: it's also about having a tool chain to include and maintain the data into the cars (update) which needs to be developed, despite of the wiki type fancy tagging scheme (compared to Navtec/Nokia an TeleAtlas/TomTom). I'm quite sure that the automotive industry keeps an eye on OSM although there is no official statement. [1];-) BTW car industry: I am aware of talks between an OSMF board member (Oliver) an the German car industry in the past years. But he didn't provide any details at all about the talks = not a very good behavior for an open project, even if you agree to have confidentiality... :-( Best regards, Michael. for [1]: there was e.g. a semi-public talk of an postgraduate here at Munich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France Conférence State Of The Map France du 4 au 6 avril à Parishttp://openstreetmap.fr/sotmfr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Hi, On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:03:41AM -0400, Phil! Gold wrote: If, however, you want to foster a community around a larger scale project, I think share-alike is a better path to take. If OSM switched to public domain licensing today, there would almost certainly be more people using and benefiting from today's OSM data. Google in particular would probably make OSM data part of its data; they already merge numerous public domain datasets into their proprietary dataset. That would make Google the better choice for a lot of people than plain OSM data, and you can even edit Google's data through their Map Maker program. From there, I suspect that Map Maker would attract more people that might otherwise have ended up contributing to OSM, which would hurt community growth and benefit Google at the expense of all the other OSM data consumers. But this is technically impossible. Either you take OSM and the flow of changes of contributers for a certain area, or you take some snapshot and let your community edit it by cutting off the OSM stream. Google might take OSM data - so what - but either they cut themselves off the OSM change stream by advertising their MapMaper or stop offering MapMaker and use our changes. For technical reasons Google cant use OUR data and THEIR community. In my opinion, the single biggest thing that makes OSM valuable is the community of people contributing to it, and the license on the data needs to reinforce that community, not allow proprietary data uses to splinter it. OSM as a Dataset is just half of the story without the community and steady growing changes and fixes. So its impossible for ANYONE to get the full OSM benefit without the community. IMO a share alike does not get new contributions but hinders adoption. I want good and current maps everywhere - Be it Google, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, VW or Bing. I dont want to deal with politics or economics. OSMs benefit is the community, currentness and grade of detail. This cant be achieved by our commercial counterparts. So we have already won the battle on all grounds. Its just a matter of time. IMO we lost concerning our License. We have much better Map Data - so why does BMW offer Google? IMO because it doesnt require BMW to think about it. They can mix in their data and preprocessing and noone will be questioning BMW about an ODbL and where the Database is. They can put in their RTTI data in the DB and dont even need to tell people how it works. OSM will never be available at that level of simplicity with the current Share Alike. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
2014-03-16 10:38 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de: We have much better Map Data - so why does BMW offer Google? My guess is that they are looking also beyond the German border when choosing their data provider ;-). Not everywhere our map is superior to Google's. And secondly, they might have errors like we do or even more, but noone was ever fired for choosing Google maps, while you have to be more couragious to choose an open project where everyone can edit anytime. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
* Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de [2014-03-16 10:38 +0100]: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:03:41AM -0400, Phil! Gold wrote: I suspect that Map Maker would attract more people that might otherwise have ended up contributing to OSM, which would hurt community growth and benefit Google at the expense of all the other OSM data consumers. But this is technically impossible. Either you take OSM and the flow of changes of contributers for a certain area, or you take some snapshot and let your community edit it by cutting off the OSM stream. Google appears to do both, probably because they've gotten really good at data conflation. They already pull data from multiple datasets, including proprietary data like Telenav's, public domain data from governments and such, and restricted use data from local governments, and then they integrate GMM contributions on top of that amalgamation. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- A funny symbol that I can't read has just been input. Continue, and I'll forget that it ever happened. -- TeX error message --- -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Not everywhere our map is superior to Google's. But in places where we are mapping fine detail that Google has no idea about we are ... In my area of the UK Google has large blank areas where OSM has all the footpaths and roadways that are needed simply to navigate to many local businesses. Only OSM mapping takes you to the correct location ... In places even OS does not have the correct current details so the 'commercial users' have no real chance of being up to date. Since the current licence now fills in holes that previously existed that data is 'safe' from being simply harvested for commercial use? And routing programs that use the OSM data have an advantage. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 17.03.2014 00:59, schrieb Lester Caine: But in places where we are mapping fine detail that Google has no idea about we are ... In my area of the UK Google has large blank areas where OSM has all the footpaths and roadways that are needed simply to navigate to many local businesses. Only OSM mapping takes you to the correct location ... In places even OS does not have the correct current details so the 'commercial users' have no real chance of being up to date. Since the current licence now fills in holes that previously existed that data is 'safe' from being simply harvested for commercial use? And routing programs that use the OSM data have an advantage. OSM has so many places where there is almost nothing mapped. Large cities, fine, but in smaller cities there is practically nothing which you cannot see from the aerial photos. Because, as it would seem, OSM mappers do the mapping all from their desk. They do not seem to go out and look on the street ;) . And in other countries, OSM is practically useless. Take a look outside of Europe. If I, as a company, would use some map provider, I would definitely go for at least everywhere a minimum level of coverage instead of only a few places with excellent coverage. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
* Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com [2014-03-13 10:26 -0400]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 This is really similar to the discussions that periodically happen in the open source software community over whether share-alike licenses like the GPL or open-use licenses like the 3-clause BSD license are better. I usually end up on the side of share-alike for reasons best summed up by a friend of mine who once said, The GPL restricts your freedom to be evil. The BSD license doesn't. I think that if your goal is to have as many people as possible using your data, you're best off choosing open-use or public domain licensing. (Richard Weait and I chose to go with CC0 and PDDL for the data in the shield rendering so as to allow for as much variance of reuse as possible. Similarly, it makes sense for US federal government data, because their mandate is to be as useful to US citizens as possible.) If, however, you want to foster a community around a larger scale project, I think share-alike is a better path to take. If OSM switched to public domain licensing today, there would almost certainly be more people using and benefiting from today's OSM data. Google in particular would probably make OSM data part of its data; they already merge numerous public domain datasets into their proprietary dataset. That would make Google the better choice for a lot of people than plain OSM data, and you can even edit Google's data through their Map Maker program. From there, I suspect that Map Maker would attract more people that might otherwise have ended up contributing to OSM, which would hurt community growth and benefit Google at the expense of all the other OSM data consumers. In my opinion, the single biggest thing that makes OSM valuable is the community of people contributing to it, and the license on the data needs to reinforce that community, not allow proprietary data uses to splinter it. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- lately my mania has been mega-lo-mein-ia, which is to say i believe the plate of noodles is larger than i am. -- elysse --- -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Alex Barth writes: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Another aspect of where the ODbL hurts us: Because we are using a restrictive license, we cannot argue against other parties that use a restrictive license. Look at New York State's GIS Clearinghouse. Individuals not welcome. For-profit corporations not welcome. OpenStreetMap users not welcome. NY government entities? Welcome! Non-profits? Welcome! We can't argue against that on principle because we're just as bad. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
I disagree. This is about money; my personal belief is that CloudMade would have made more dollars without having to ShareAlike. More business models open up, and it wouldn’t have had to deal with the community. Indeed I imagine this was a topic of continual discussion. The ODbL requires only two things and my understanding is that MapBox disagree with both of them, or at least Alex does. This shouldn’t be surprising, they hinder making money, like it did for CM. But in those cases, we’re talking about competition in the market via data sets. My personal belief, not speaking for them, is that Telenav has a different focus, in that free-to-the-consumer turn-by-turn navigation doesn’t have these impediments. Therefore it would in theory not be an issue in our case to attribute and ShareAlike. Like in my original slides about OSM from years ago - it’s about moving up the stack and competing at a higher level, not competing over data itself (where attribution and ShareAlike are relevant). Instead, going all-in on OSM and focusing on the product and user experience. Remember, these problems only occur if you don’t want to use OSM, but want to use it with other datasetsets that you don’t want to contribute back. As for legal opinions on the ODbL you should understand that weaker (or, really, any) lawyers don’t like new things. New un-tested things have the potential to blow up in your face and throw you in court. Therefore the calculus is different when you are small and court is a scary place, compared to if you’re a big company say like Microsoft and you’re in court all the time. In my time I’ve met plenty of lawyers who’re fine with the ODbL and it shouldn’t be characterized that all lawyers everywhere somehow have major problems with it. The community norms (and the new ones the LWG is apparently putting together I heard) help very much here, and of course there are always issues with any license. Whether the ODbL is good or bad for OSM is a different question. The ODbL was a very fun multi-year process that I happen to have been deeply involved in. It would be nice if there was data to suggest that one license is measurably better than another (for OSM). Instead, we have a large collections of anecdotes (not data) like “nobody uses OpenBSD because of the license” or “Linux wins because of the license”. We’ve had beliefs like that in the past. For example “lots more people would edit with nicer tools”. This is a belief I shared. So, multiple times, we’ve built nicer tools. And it’s turned out that there is some small grain of truth to that but it’s not really comparable to the effort involved. I was wrong. Alex makes a bunch of these statements like that, I’ll pick three that jump out: 1) the assumption that share-alike encourages contribution is a myth” 2) The reality is that OpenStreetMap is only used extensively in situations where the share-alike license does not apply, for instance, map rendering. 3) OpenStreetMap's current licensing is stunting our growth And respond: 1) Data would be useful either way 2) I’d say that’s because OSM doesn’t contain a lot of address or navigation data (which, as it happens, is where the money is), not because of the license. 3) My personal belief is it might stunt CloudMade or MapBox, but not Telenav or MapQuest, and, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats doesn’t show a lot of evidence of being stunted. ct. I’ll sum by saying that when you’re picking licenses you’re really picking business models. We should be very careful when considering license changes and make sure any choice is backed by the best data we can get, not anecdotes or nice sounding stories. The ODbL has got us this far, and all the graphs are up-and-to-the-right. Exponential curves are powerful. Lastly, consider the weight of effort thousands of people put in to mapping before you to get us here, and what terms they did it under. Steve On Mar 14, 2014, at 1:18 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Alex Barth writes: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Another aspect of where the ODbL hurts us: Because we are using a restrictive license, we cannot argue against other parties that use a restrictive license. Look at New York State's GIS Clearinghouse. Individuals not welcome. For-profit corporations not welcome. OpenStreetMap users not welcome. NY government entities? Welcome! Non-profits? Welcome! We can't argue against that on principle because we're just as bad. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. OpenStreetMap is not stuck with ODbL, the OpenStreetMap community selected it. The OpenStreetMap community even helped to craft ODbL, with the Open Knowledge Foundation and OpenDataCommons.org, by participating in the discussions that went into drafting ODbL. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Richard Weait wrote On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Alex Barth lt; alex@ gt; wrote: Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now.OpenStreetMap is not stuck with ODbL, the OpenStreetMap communityselected it. The OpenStreetMap community even helped to craft ODbL,with the Open Knowledge Foundation and OpenDataCommons.org, byparticipating in the discussions that went into drafting ODbL. The OSM community did not select ODbL. The question before the community was Would you like your data to remain part of OSM? Agree to the license. Would you like your data removed? Disagree. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-Isn-t-All-That-Open-Let-s-Change-That-and-Drop-Share-Alike-tp5799574p5799605.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
