3 ms·

I am happy to contribute for free, but after what happened with Mapillary, I would like a clause that states that should OSM be sold, I would be entitled to a p

by chaz6 5y ago

I am happy to contribute for free, but after what happened with Mapillary, I would like a clause that states that should OSM be sold, I would be entitled to a portion of the sale amount commensurate with my contributions, or the option to withhold my contributions from the sale.

commoner 5y ago
The difference between Mapillary and OSM is that Mapillary is a for-profit company, while OSM is an open dataset managed by a non-profit organization. The OSM Foundation can't sell its intellectual property rights to a for-profit company like Facebook without violating its mission statement:[1] > The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international, not-for-profit, democratic organisation with the tasks of supporting the OSM project, running and protecting the OSM database, and making it available to all. The OSMF membership is open to all who want to support the project and participate in the OSMF’s democratic process. > The OpenStreetMap Foundation is there to protect the OSM data to keep it Free and Open. Mapillary had always stated in their terms that any street imagery contributed to them belong to them. They then relicensed the imagery to be used for OSM contributions and other non-commercial purposes free of charge, but charged for commercial use. When Facebook acquired Mapillary, they obtained ownership of all of the contributions for their own use, but also relicensed them to be available free of charge for both commercial and non-commercial use.[2] Many Mapillary contributors like you did not want Facebook to obtain the data. Since the OSM Foundation is non-profit, a similar situation would not happen to OSM as long as the OSM Foundation continues to be governed by people who have the best interests of the project and the community at heart. [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement [2] https://joemorrison.medium.com/why-on-earth-did-facebook-just-acquire-mapillary-9838405272f8 https://joemorrison.medium.com/why-on-earth-did-facebook-jus...
matkoniecz 5y ago
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Term... > OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. So it would be necessary to hijack Open Street Map Foundation, though it is still possibility. Note that Mapillary from start was for-profit company with contributors giving full right to their photos.

by chaz6 5y ago

commoner 5y ago

The difference between Mapillary and OSM is that Mapillary is a for-profit company, while OSM is an open dataset managed by a non-profit organization. The OSM Foundation can't sell its intellectual property rights to a for-profit company like Facebook without violating its mission statement:[1] > The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international, not-for-profit, democratic organisation with the tasks of supporting the OSM project, running and protecting the OSM database, and making it available to all. The OSMF membership is open to all who want to support the project and participate in the OSMF’s democratic process. > The OpenStreetMap Foundation is there to protect the OSM data to keep it Free and Open. Mapillary had always stated in their terms that any street imagery contributed to them belong to them. They then relicensed the imagery to be used for OSM contributions and other non-commercial purposes free of charge, but charged for commercial use. When Facebook acquired Mapillary, they obtained ownership of all of the contributions for their own use, but also relicensed them to be available free of charge for both commercial and non-commercial use.[2] Many Mapillary contributors like you did not want Facebook to obtain the data. Since the OSM Foundation is non-profit, a similar situation would not happen to OSM as long as the OSM Foundation continues to be governed by people who have the best interests of the project and the community at heart. [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement [2] https://joemorrison.medium.com/why-on-earth-did-facebook-just-acquire-mapillary-9838405272f8 https://joemorrison.medium.com/why-on-earth-did-facebook-jus...

matkoniecz 5y ago

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Term... > OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. So it would be necessary to hijack Open Street Map Foundation, though it is still possibility. Note that Mapillary from start was for-profit company with contributors giving full right to their photos.