OpenStreetMap
The OSM community some time ago adopted the ODbL license, which (roughly speaking) has two major requirements for users of our data:
- To contribute their own data back to OSM (the “share alike” clause)
- To include attribution on products built from our data
It’s almost certain that most mappers — especially those contributing regularly — have encountered a map on the web or in printed form based on OSM data that violated the attribution requirement in some way. The attribution text might have been shuffled out of the way, credit for our work given to somebody else, or the attribution was absent completely. By my estimate, around 10% of websites that use OpenStreetMap tiles lack proper attribution. This is in addition to an unknown proportion of maps with similar problems published on physical media (especially info panels installed outdoors), or ones using custom tiles not made by OSM. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that proper attribution is missing on widely-used map products published by large companies with hundreds of thousands to millions of users.
The OSM project celebrates its 20th anniversary this year, and one would expect that should be enough time to develop effective mechanisms for addressing license violations. This obviously is not the case. We as a community delegated the right to enforce the license to the OSM Foundation, but enforcement is something this institution has yet to demonstrate. All the OSMF has accomplished in this regard is to publish a “love letter” which individual volunteers are supposed to use, containing language that asks violators to fix the attribution problem. There is no follow-up procedure in place for situations when the violator fails to respond in the desired way. We also have no mechanism that actively looks for violations, relying instead on volunteers to report cases to one of a number of case-tracking lists that mappers created over time.
I speculate this state of affairs is the result of a desire typical for normal people to avoid confrontation, amplified by the volunteer context of the OSM project. We could have heeded these instincts and adopt a different license — one that would not necessitate enforcing, but we did not. We adapted this particular license for a reason, and the OSMF should therefore do everything it can to defend it.
I recently made a proposal* to the OSMF that would incentivize individuals to look for violators and actively work on cases. The proposal is based on the idea that resolving violations takes time, for which the individual “case workers” should be compensated if they so desire. I proposed the compensation to take the form of either own volunteer work of any kind or money. However, the proposal relies on the OSMF’s willingness to amend the Terms of Use in a way that would endorse the case workers’ claim for such a reward. More broadly, the proposal calls for the OSMF to step up to that exclusive right we delegated to them and defend the license in court if necessary.
I received some feedback about the proposal on the OSMF Licensing Working Group forum (not public) and also on the OSM-legal-talk mailing list, but I received no response from anybody in the OSMF. These conversations (or their absence) lead me to a conclusion that there is resistance from the OSMF to enforce the attribution clause of the license, regardless of the enforcement mechanism used (the one I proposed or others). I might be wrong in the conclusion, but OSMF can clarify their position. Failing to do so will confirm that my suspicion is correct.
Some will argue that the cases of violations are low in number and generally do not pose any harm to our efforts or the community. This opinion, however, is not only deeply unfair to the mappers for whom the attribution is about the only visible benefit they get, but also carries a moral risk — it broadcasts the notion that it’s not necessary to worry about the license much. Our whole licensing efforts and apparatus then start to look like a farce.
- In fact I submitted two proposals. The first called for the use of the Rovas application, which among other benefits, allows payments for violations to be made with volunteer time. After some objections from the LWG group I submitted a 2nd proposal that avoids use of any 3rd party applications. If there is interest, I can write another post with comparison of the existing cases resolution mechanism to the proposed ones.
Discussion
Comment from SimonPoole on 23 June 2024 at 06:48
I would note that your point 1) is not correct, the ODbL in no way requires
The ODbl only requires Derivative Databases (which may or may not contain additional data) to be licensed on ODbL terms, in practice that means that a recipient of the data can use it on the same licence terms as the creator of the derivative. Neither the creator of the derivative nor the recipient is required to provide it to a 3rd party, distribute it publicly or contribute to OSM.
Comment from laznik on 24 June 2024 at 08:58
Thank you for clarifying that point.
Comment from cRaIgalLAn on 24 June 2024 at 20:53
The OSM Foundation Board wrote separately to laznik on a version of this proposal.
In summary, the board takes attribution seriously as a duty and completely supports reminding attribution offenders. To do that, the Board has a process and template for mappers to voluntarily issue polite, professional reminders.
You’ll find it here. Please use it whenever you see unattributed maps.
Laznik correctly identifies that it is an inefficient model. Yes, it is. It could be improved. But it inefficiently hit 90% attribution.
Laznik’s proposal for an open profit driven process to pick up the remaining 10% introduces efficiency (and financial costs) but also a risk of some few profit-minded mappers going beyond reminding into an attitude of harassing OSM data users, leading to expensive reputational damage. Incentives can sometimes act perversely.
We should not lose sight of the big goal, which is free data for all, and we support all OSM data providers and also all OSM data users, even the 10% who are attribution offenders. The board therefore chooses courteously reminding and supporting data users and is concerned at any possibility of harassment.
Laznik is completely correct that we should all work to get the attribution % even higher in recognition of the work of all OSM mappers. Proposals are always welcome. We thank laznik for a full commitment to OSM and for putting great effort into the proposal on how to improve on the current inefficient process.
Comment from laznik on 25 June 2024 at 10:43
The main point of my post here is not a discussion about a particular mechanism for enforcing the license (that is a secondary concern), but the laissez-faire approach of the OSMF toward enforcement.
Very simply put: If it does not attempt to resolve every known (attribution requirement) violation, where does the OSMF draw the line? What would be the trigger that would prompt it to bring a particular case to a state compatible with the license requirement?
I will avoid commenting on the Craig-mentioned points concerning the mechanism of my proposal, as it is clear that the board did not spend much time analyzing it, or (hopefully not) has different reasons for the inaccurate description provided in their response.
Comment from laznik on 10 July 2024 at 17:11
Apparently you have not read carefully what my post is about. The issue is that the OSMF will not step up to enforcing the license, for example in cases, when the existing mechanism (the love letter-based) fails. That’s why I consider the whole license business, including the LWG and the established “enforcement” mechanism a charade.