OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
openstreetmap.orgI 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.
Agreed, I don't believe OSM could have survived without this license, I don't think the contributors who put so much time into building it would have done so if they thought that realistically much of their contribution would have gone to bolstering google's bottom line as opposed to creating an alternative to google maps.
I am sure I would not have contributed to OSM map if the licensed allowed google to just take everything.
That would be me working for google for free, and I value my time more. It is enough that my tax money goes to make maps that google later buys.
For what it's worth, I probably would have contributed if it was not share alike. That said, my contribution was minor and I think keeping share-alike is the right move.
Moving to the ODBL occurred reasonably recently in OSM history. At the time, there was an amount of argument and PD had a lot of support.
I think PD had a lot of support not only because people liked the implications for osm, but because there is somewhat unlikely it's even possible in many countries to copyright this data.
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.
I don't know how you arrived to that conclusion. OSM's success, popularity is determined largely by the quality of its service compared to other providers, which in turn determines the amount of user contribution. By allowing Google/Apple to use this data, their marginal value in relation to OSM increases, which in turn disincentivizes potential users from using OSM, thus making the project less popular.
Google/Apple already benefit from superior distribution/marketing, but lack in quality (at least in geo-data, many have reported OSM to have more roads, better coverage. Most of the paths, trails in the forests and mountains where I live are covered by OSM, which is why I use OSM while mountain-biking. Google is far from reaching that. Others have reported similar findings.)
Thus, as I see it, OSM is giving away for free its main superiority.
(Alas, in the name of the Church of Emacs, OSM, stop this non-sense).
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?
No; because Google builds maps at their own expense, combining them with OSM to create a superset would make mapping better for everyone.
Google is actually probably the worst example here (if the most visible): they have the least incentive to share and likely never will. But if OSM becomes the de-facto standard database for mapping (as it almost certainly would if it were a more commercial-friendly license) the mere fact that so many more people are engaging with it on a daily basis would increase the contribution rate.
From a pure logistical sense, very few companies have the resources that Google does. I'm saying it's better for OSM to allow a situation where Google gets something from OSM and OSM gets nothing back from Google because OSM likely would get a lot back from a lot of other parties. It simply doesn't make sense for them to maintain their own data sets in the long term; but in the short term they can't even use OSM so they have no alternative.
No, this was just a pointed paraphrasing of exelius' argument.
> 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?
One of the main reason I contribute to OpenStreetMap is because I don't like googles monopoly position. Yes, it's not a real one, but youtube, maps and search are pretty close. I can't do much against search, I can help a bit by using vimeo & Co, but with OpenStreetMap I can really contribute a lot to create a great alternative to companies and app developers out there.
If you kept reading, you'd see them answer this question directly:
If we dropped share-alike, nothing would stop players like Google or Apple from mixing OpenStreetMap data extensively into their mobile maps. And this is a good thing. OpenStreetMap's opportunity is not to compete and win against the Google Maps of the world, but to say what's on their maps.
No. I really don't care to help Google or Apple, and I would prefer it if their proprietary mapping solutions failed. I don't want OSM data in their products.
Who should get to use OSM data then? If you don't want to see Google or Apple use OSM data, then who do you think should?
At this point the only users of OSM data are creating differently-colored maps based on OSM data. No one has attempted to go above and beyond that into improving the map data because of the licensing implications.
Apple and Google are totally allowed to use OSM data, they just can't close it up, DRM it, and stick it in an app store.
Mozilla is going "above and beyond" to build a dataset of wifi ap mac addresses and cell towers on top of OSM.
https://github.com/mozilla/MozStumbler
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CloudServices/Location
There is no shortage of OSM-based apps available on f-droid:
https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=openstreetma...
People who prefer the better maps?
And, yes no commercial operator has improved the map data, because of the license. But do you think these people/enties will suddenly give back just because they are no longer required to do so? Sorry, but I don't see much sense in this.
And by the way: This is wrong. There was a proprietary renderer that produced very nice maps with a combination of OSM data and non free relief data.
Google and Apple can use OSM data. They just cannot use it to improve their own data. I think that is fine. If they want to improve their own data, they will have to improve OSM.
Nothing stops Apple from mixing OpenStreetMap data extensively into their mobile maps with a share alike model. They just don't want to. And why should I change my mind and not Apple? I'm not making any money from this, so i think it's Apples move.
Why is that a good thing, and is it really OSM's goal to power all of the maps in the world? Why?
>by crowdsourcing its data
Google does this too. https://www.google.com/mapmaker
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.
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...
> 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.
The main assumption in the article was that people who voluntarily create maps (like I did) only care how much people they reach with the product of their work. And if that would be the case I would have chosen google map maker because absolutely everybody uses google maps. Google maps does not have a free data api, but that is completely irrelevant for this argument since nobody 1) uses that anyway.
1) Only a negligible fraction of people using maps.
(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... "The 'Satellite' layer may be used to produce derivative data for the OpenStreetMap project. All other use for derivative data is prohibited."
the assumption that share-alike encourages contribution is a myth
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.
Or a free Objective-C compiler. Or free software for IBM computers. Or drivers for Linux.
I think there's a distinction to be made between a data set and executable code.
What would you say is the precise nature of that distinction?
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!
I'd say a lame article. Nth rehash of the BSD vs GPL debate, without adding anything.
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?
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.
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.
ArcGIS has quite a good OpenStreetMap support / extension.
The thing is: Open Data is liked by proprietary software. Open Source software is liked by proprietary data.
There is none.
It is the age old debate about MIT/BSD vs GPL.
The problem is not OSM, it is the greedy institutions that are scared away by the idea of having to give anything back.
And the greedy consultants who mislead ordinary institutions into thinking that greedy is the way to go.
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.
Also Google has said that their maps are copyrighted, and has a terms of service/use.
No! Please keep a copyleft license!
Apple already uses OSM data in their maps app: http://gspa21.ls.apple.com/html/attribution.html
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.
> 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.
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.
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_...
So, while the data would be protected in other places, such as the UK, it wouldn't necessarily be protected in the US.
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.
OSM collects factual data, so the license really doesn't matter much... the copyright on it won't stand up in court.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Read the licence. It's not just a licence of copyright, it's also a contract.
I read the license/contract. It is enforceable much like the GPL if the data is copyright. It is significantly weakened if the data is not copyright and you're in a place with no concept of "database rights" (e.g. the USA.)
The lawyers who wrote the ODBL understand this issue: check out how they define the word 'use' in section 1.
IANAL, yadda yadda.
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.
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.