OpenStreetMap
So push finally turned to shove, and I decide to abandon the OSMF/OSM database/API and instead rely on the FOSM database/API. It's the only real alternative for me at the moment.
It all came down to mostly two things,
1. nearmap. I depend heavily on nearmap imagery for most of my on the ground/surveyed edits (and wholly depend on it for armchair mapping places I've never been to). I do this because
a) I though it's more accurate than a consumer grade GPS, or bing (which I never found had a solid enough legal footing than I would prefer)
b) It is much more convenient for me to trace imagery than carry around a GPS everywhere and taking down tracks and waypoints.
Of this nearmap derived data, I must use the CC-BY-SA license. I can't change that, so I can't agree to the CTs and continue mapping to the OSM database.
nearmap is important to me, because most of the data in my area and most of my contributions are derived from nearmap, and I don't want to see that lost.
2. Back when I tried to read the CTs it was my understanding that you either needed to own full rights over the data you contribute, or the data must be essentially public domain for you to upload it. I would rather a project which distributes its data under the foo license to be able to accept foo licensed data. (ie. I think a CC-BY-SA or ODbL OSM should accept CC-BY-SA or ODbL data. it seems the CT's break this)
The rest of my data is mostly wholly owned by me (eg. completely survey or derived from PD data sources), in which case I license this data CC0.
This decision has nothing to do with the ODbL or any other license. Since nearmap isn't compatible with the CT's, and I want to keep my/others nearmap data, the actual future license is irrelevant at this point in time.
As 80n said, fosm is a fork of the data, not the community. I want to share the same wiki and tagging discussions, not fork the whole of *.osm.org.
Sure the fosm API seems slower than the OSM one, but at least it seems to be functioning properly, and is publishing the minutely diffs. It could do with this rails port thing for browsing the data via the web/tracking changes via rss... Hopefully some kind soul will set up a tile server based on fosm data. Unfortunately I can't as I lack the network connection and hardware (but if the NBN gives me a cheap unlimited data quota 100Mbps uplink speed I would probably have good reason to invest in some hardware).
Discussion
Comment from MiLk on 24 June 2011 at 12:00
All data traced from nearmap imagery until 17 June 2011 can be licensed under CT/ODbL. The statement from nearmap came this week. Have a look at the mailing lists, they are full of discussions about this.
Comment from aharvey on 24 June 2011 at 12:26
I found that communication a bit confusing/contradictory.
If nearmap really lets me license nearmap derived data under any license then I license it under CC0...
Regardless since nearmap is still offering the CC-BY-SA licensed for derived data moving forward, I still want to contribute nearmap derived data in the future too.
Comment from ToeBee on 24 June 2011 at 18:23
Not sure why people are so confused about nearmap. They gave us explicit permission to relicense existing contributions under ODbL. It doesn't mean they are changing their license or anything else. It was a generous offer and we should all say "thank you" and move on. It is too bad we can no longer use this source but mapping happened before ANY aerial imagery was available and it will continue without nearmap.
Comment from aharvey on 24 June 2011 at 22:50
>They gave us explicit permission to relicense existing contributions under ODbL.
They can't give OSM/OSMF this permission, because of the way they worded their licensed, the contributor is now the copyright holder to that data. All they can do is say to the contributor "you can relicense existing contributions under ODbL if you choose so".
What was said in a post to the mailing list was,
>All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time.
The terms in place between OSM and me at the time of submission was I was submitting CC-BY-SA data. I cannot go back in time and change that.
It appears that nearmap would like for people who agreed to the CTs and submitted nearmap derived content to unvoid that agreement (because the user never had the rights to agree to the CTs and upload nearmap derived content).
Comment from aharvey on 24 June 2011 at 22:57
>It is too bad we can no longer use this source but mapping happened before ANY aerial imagery was available and it will continue without nearmap.
Yes that is perfectly valid and okay. You can continue that effort at OSM, but I'm going to continue that effort over at FOSM. I'm choosing FOSM because it allows for a larger set of freely licensed data to be accepted than OSM and it means that ~90% (just a rough guess here) of my edits and others in my area wont be removed (in lure of more accurate and better quality data replacing it).
Comment from JoshD on 25 June 2011 at 13:19
There's no reason you can't do both, accept the CT's so that your contributions can continue on in OSM (because Nearmap has explicitly allowed this), but all future contributions will be to FOSM (because you want to use the Nearmap imagery). If you read the list archive, the representative from Nearmap made it abundantly clear that users who mapped using Nearmap imagery are allowed to agree to the CT's so that contributions can remain in OSM (however future mapping in OSM via Nearmap is not allowed). If you don't want to agree to the CT's because you dislike ODbL or something, that's one thing, but don't try and use the Nearmap (non-)issue as an excuse. Your contributions are certainly valued and I hope you allow them to continue in OSM, even if future contributions go to FOSM.
Comment from robert on 25 June 2011 at 19:35
This nearmap issue is nonsense. Nearmap stuff will not need to be deleted from OpenStreetMap on the license switch. Whoever told you so is being disingenuous.
Comment from aharvey on 25 June 2011 at 22:45
Re: JoshD
The nearmap response posted to the mailing lists said:
>All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time.
The terms in place between OSM and me at the time of my submission was I was submitting CC-BY-SA data. I cannot go back in time and change that.
I would be very happy to be wrong about this. I would like to place my nearmap derived data under CC0, just like I place the rest of my original surveyed data CC0, but my understanding of the original license from nearmap, and this statement from nearmap is that I must license the data CC-BY-SA, and hence couldn't accept the CTs, and now I can't go back in time and change "the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time.", so I cannot change the license under which my nearmap derived edits were made... I'm happy to be wrong about this as I would rather place my data under CC0.