10 ms·

no. I wish osm would adjust their licensing to prevent reuse of contributions to build non free (as in open) servicing.

by hirako2000 5y ago

simonh 5y ago
Since companies including Apple and Microsoft contribute a lot of data and funding to OSM, what benefits do you imagine would result from preventing them using it?
pcthrowaway 5y ago
It's the permissive vs. free software license debate. In practice there are people who won't be able to use the data for their use case if a non-permissive license is applied.
- nightpool 5y ago
  > In practice there are people who won't be able to use the data for their use case if a non-permissive license is applied Well, of course. The whole point of a non-permissive license is to.... not permit things. It's frustrating to see people bring this out like some sort of gotcha. I use the AGPL because I think it's important that users have access to the source code the applications they interact with operate on. If people aren't okay with that, then they're completely welcome to not use my code. (I am somewhat sympathetic to people who think that the GPL's definition of "Combined Work" is too broad—I've personally never viewed the inclusion of dependencies in a dynamic programming language with strong module boundaries like Node, Ruby or Python as creating a "Combined Work"—and I'd happily license my works with a theoretical LAGPL or an Affero-like Mozilla Public License if either of those were available. Unfortunately, the AGPL remains the only game in town for networked software.)
  - pcthrowaway 5y ago
    I'm not sure if you're aware, but the data on OSM is covered by their ODbL which is a "share-alike" license. From their FAQ[1]: What do you mean by Share-Alike? If you publicly use any adapted version of our database, or a partial extraction from it, or works (such as maps) produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted database under the ODbL. In other words, if you improve our data and then distribute it, you need to share your improvements with the general public at no charge. A painless way to do that is to contribute your improvements directly back to OpenStreetMap. Share-Alike only applies if you distribute what you have done to outside people or organisations. You can do what you like at home, or in your school, organisation or company ... the following section does not apply to you. It's true that people can use their software and data for non-free services built on non-FOSS code, but people using the data publicly do have to distribute modifications to the data-set under the same license [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License
    - nightpool 5y ago
      Yes, I'm well aware. I think it maybe makes more sense to make this reply to one of the other comments I'm replying to.
- Brakenshire 5y ago
  I find the distinction difficult to understand. The way I interpret the OSM license, the data is really not freely available to use in a commercial context except as a base layer. If you use the OSM data in combination with any other data sources you have to publish both the resulting dataset and any processing steps or algorithms used to produce the dataset. So that means you cannot combine OSM data with any dataset which cannot be released, and it also means any innovation you develop in processing the data cannot be protected. I can see why the license was chosen, clearly it's necessary to prevent Microsoft or Apple taking the data and closing it off for their use, but at the same time it seems to make most business models using the data unsustainable. It's a shame from a HN perspective, you'd hope open data would allow for the continual opportunity for the creation of startups to innovate on using the data, locking open competition in the same way that open software has done, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way. Most companies in the area seem to be creators and consumers of base layers, I don't see many doing anything with the geographical database. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the terms of the license.
  - Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
    It’s more complex than that. OSM’s licence isn’t a direct parallel of one single software licence, but it has an LGPL-ish permissive aspect for making things from the data (“Produced Works”). OSM data is used a lot for routing (pretty much all bike navigation apart from Google’s uses OSM data) and increasingly for GIS-type analysis.
    - Brakenshire 5y ago
      When I was looking at it, I got the impression a produced work was something like a t shirt with a map printed on it. Is that wrong? Or any idea where I could read about how the interpret that permission?
      - matkoniecz 5y ago
        > If you make a map from OpenStreetMap geodata and publish it, you may publish the map under any license you like. In ODbL parlance, this is known as a "Produced Work". https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Lega...

no. I wish osm would adjust their licensing to prevent reuse of contributions to build non free (as in open) servicing.

Since companies including Apple and Microsoft contribute a lot of data and funding to OSM, what benefits do you imagine would result from preventing them using it?

pcthrowaway 5y ago

It's the permissive vs. free software license debate. In practice there are people who won't be able to use the data for their use case if a non-permissive license is applied.

nightpool 5y ago
> In practice there are people who won't be able to use the data for their use case if a non-permissive license is applied Well, of course. The whole point of a non-permissive license is to.... not permit things. It's frustrating to see people bring this out like some sort of gotcha. I use the AGPL because I think it's important that users have access to the source code the applications they interact with operate on. If people aren't okay with that, then they're completely welcome to not use my code. (I am somewhat sympathetic to people who think that the GPL's definition of "Combined Work" is too broad—I've personally never viewed the inclusion of dependencies in a dynamic programming language with strong module boundaries like Node, Ruby or Python as creating a "Combined Work"—and I'd happily license my works with a theoretical LAGPL or an Affero-like Mozilla Public License if either of those were available. Unfortunately, the AGPL remains the only game in town for networked software.)
- pcthrowaway 5y ago
  I'm not sure if you're aware, but the data on OSM is covered by their ODbL which is a "share-alike" license. From their FAQ[1]: What do you mean by Share-Alike? If you publicly use any adapted version of our database, or a partial extraction from it, or works (such as maps) produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted database under the ODbL. In other words, if you improve our data and then distribute it, you need to share your improvements with the general public at no charge. A painless way to do that is to contribute your improvements directly back to OpenStreetMap. Share-Alike only applies if you distribute what you have done to outside people or organisations. You can do what you like at home, or in your school, organisation or company ... the following section does not apply to you. It's true that people can use their software and data for non-free services built on non-FOSS code, but people using the data publicly do have to distribute modifications to the data-set under the same license [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License
  - nightpool 5y ago
    Yes, I'm well aware. I think it maybe makes more sense to make this reply to one of the other comments I'm replying to.
Brakenshire 5y ago
I find the distinction difficult to understand. The way I interpret the OSM license, the data is really not freely available to use in a commercial context except as a base layer. If you use the OSM data in combination with any other data sources you have to publish both the resulting dataset and any processing steps or algorithms used to produce the dataset. So that means you cannot combine OSM data with any dataset which cannot be released, and it also means any innovation you develop in processing the data cannot be protected. I can see why the license was chosen, clearly it's necessary to prevent Microsoft or Apple taking the data and closing it off for their use, but at the same time it seems to make most business models using the data unsustainable. It's a shame from a HN perspective, you'd hope open data would allow for the continual opportunity for the creation of startups to innovate on using the data, locking open competition in the same way that open software has done, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way. Most companies in the area seem to be creators and consumers of base layers, I don't see many doing anything with the geographical database. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the terms of the license.
- Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
  It’s more complex than that. OSM’s licence isn’t a direct parallel of one single software licence, but it has an LGPL-ish permissive aspect for making things from the data (“Produced Works”). OSM data is used a lot for routing (pretty much all bike navigation apart from Google’s uses OSM data) and increasingly for GIS-type analysis.
  - Brakenshire 5y ago
    When I was looking at it, I got the impression a produced work was something like a t shirt with a map printed on it. Is that wrong? Or any idea where I could read about how the interpret that permission?
    - matkoniecz 5y ago
      > If you make a map from OpenStreetMap geodata and publish it, you may publish the map under any license you like. In ODbL parlance, this is known as a "Produced Work". https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Lega...