OpenStreetMap
Perhaps it is not too late for the application of some common sense.
I am unhappy with the new CTs, and with the proposed licence change, and with the manner in which they have been introduced. Furthermore, I am unwilling to commit myself to a legal document under coercion when I do not fully understand it, and I have therefore declined the CTs.
It seems that the consequence of this is that all my contributions to the map will be deleted at some point in the near future. I have enjoyed the process of tramping around the streets and countryside, logging and photographing, and so the hundreds of hours spent on it are not wasted, but it is going to be a serious annoyance to the other contributors and it is not fair on people who are actually trying to improve the state of the map.
It is ironic that I am in this position largely because of my conscientious attribution of all sources including a small amount of OS OpenData. Perhaps it would have been better to copy the whole lot from Google and keep quiet about it.
I do not care if my contributions will no longer be given attribution, and I do not care what use other people make of "my" data. I am quite happy to abandon any and all of my rights to it and for OSM to do with it what they will, but it seems that that is not enough and the only options are either for me to sign a legal agreement, or else all of it has to be deleted.
The bit that really hurts is the loss of the data in Marrakech which is not accurately mappable from an armchair, and involves determined walking down little alleys, brushing aside all the warnings of "it's closed, it's closed" and the repeated offers to buy the GPS set!
Is anyone listening?
Discussion
Comment from Dave92 on 25 April 2011 at 11:06
No data will be lost, all contributions that will not be relicenced under the ODbL will still be availlable, but not through the official API.
The only thing that we would eventually lose is the help of some contributors that will stop to work on the project because they refuse the ODbL. I personnaly hope that most of them will return after some time.
Comment from wallclimber21 on 25 April 2011 at 14:14
Dave92,
Will the data that's not used with the API still be used to render the official tiles? If not, it might as well be called lost for practical purposes.
What a clusterfsck. And how very clumsy this was done.
Comment from SK53 on 25 April 2011 at 15:21
@Wallclimber21: you seem to have a very narrow view of how data from OSM might be used. It is not just the tiles.
I for instance use OSM on my Garmin: there is nothing to stop me having a final CC-BY-SA OSM map and a current ODbL OSM map stored side-by-side on my Garmin. Of course re-combining the data is a different issue (at least outside of personal use), but that's exactly why the license change exists.
I have stated before that I have no desire to see mappers and their data lost from OSM, but I also know that people have different perspectives and attachments to various kinds of license. Unfortunately no-one has found a way to realistically store data with a license which can meet everyone's desires and needs.
I respect others right to make their own decisions according to what is important for them. I'll be sad if they don't accept the new license and CTs, but I recognise that this will happen (no-one can expect unanimity in a group of 200,000+). Personally, I may have to do some re-mapping. BUT, I'm certainly not going to call anyone names.
Comment from JoshD on 25 April 2011 at 17:00
I think "they" have done a bad job with the license change, but all I care about is mapping so I just agreed to the new CTs. If momentum shifts to a fork of OSM, I'll go there, otherwise I'll stick to the "market leader".
If you really don't want to agree to the CTs, but also don't care who uses your data or gives you attribution, then put it in the public domain. That way someone else can "launder" your data to keep it in the main OSM database, but you don't have to agree to the new terms.
Comment from Richard on 25 April 2011 at 17:30
The one thing that depresses me about all of this is the talk of "they", and the passive voice ("this was done").
OSM used to be a community where people mucked in and helped. Where people got involved, found out what the arguments were, and if they thought something could be done better, lent their time to make it so. That's what built a terrific, unique project.
Now, instead, people just sit and moan in diary entries. A real shame.
Comment from c2r on 25 April 2011 at 20:40
Hi mce, I agree with JoshD. You could consider marking all of your contributions as public domain, where the derived work allows for this to happen. After much consideration, that was the conclusion I came to. I don't really care whether anyone derives maps or anything else from my work, nor do I really care if they claim it as their own, or charge people for it; as the more places that this sort of data exists, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers
Chris
Comment from mce on 25 April 2011 at 21:11
Hi JoshD and c2r, and thanks for the comments. When I rejected the CTs I checked the box for "regard my stuff as PD", without being at all clear on whether or not that would have any effect. Is there anything more I should do?
And thanks also to the other commenters. It is appreciated.
Comment from chriscf on 26 April 2011 at 00:42
Good call. Hit the "accept" button, quit bitching, and get on with your life. There, that's common sense well applied.
What part of the process did you have a problem with? Was it the years of community discussion that preceded it? Or maybe it was the part where it was put to a vote of contributors who cared enough? Maybe it was the extensive follow-up, evaluation and the voluntary uptake you didn't like? Perhaps you were offended by the plentiful useful information explaining what was happening and why?
(I write the above on the assumption that you're not so stupid as to believe that using OpenData somehow prevents you from accepting - it doesn't.)
Quite frankly, I'm offended that you have the cheek to suggest that even though you had to agree to a legal document (probably without understanding what it meant) when you first signed up, you suggest that you are being "coerced" to do the same now. Are you eating your cake now, or are you having it later?
Comment from mce on 26 April 2011 at 05:26
Hi chriscf, and thank you for your comment. I am sorry you feel offended, but I only said I was unhappy with what has happened. I am not questioning the dedication and sincerity of the people involved.
All I am saying is this: If you want my data, then please just take it, but don't just delete it as some kind of public humiliation.
By the way, what happens to the data of a contributor who has died. Presumeably that gets deleted as well?
Comment from 42429 on 26 April 2011 at 07:51
OSM enables you to change your declining decision at any time. There is a draft to ask all decliners about their reasons and to negiotiate with them, but this draft has been postponed many times.
> don't just delete it as some kind of public humiliation
They are a afraid of a future lawsuit from decling contributors or third-party sources against OSM or any of its commercial users. With accepting, you agree not to suit the OSM Foundation for any data. With declining, you reserve the right to file a lawsuit against OSM Foundation and its commercial users for any unproper use. If you do not answer after being explicitly asked, you are losing your right for a lawsuit in English and German law (because you could have said no before, judges are doubting your real interest). However, you might try a lawsuit in France or Spain or any other country where silence does not constitute a tacit accept. In order to prevent a future lawsuit in France or elsewhere in the world, they need to delete your data at least if you have explicitly declined.
It is still time to ask the license working group for a compromise that makes all mappers happy, e.g. declaring personal contributions as public domain.
> By the way, what happens to the data of a contributor who has died. Presumeably that gets deleted as well?
That is really an open question! Theoretically, legal heirs who inherit the account must decide on the license change. Some contributors have posted a last will that gives instructions to heirs in case of leaving early.
Comment from mce on 26 April 2011 at 09:32
Hi FK270673. That is a most interesting and helpful comment.
I think it would be hard to imagine a more telling illustration of the principle: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Even at this late stage, let's hope the negotiations bear fruit. There seems to be no shortage of legal expertise around, so it surely cannot be so difficult to organise a simple release of rights by those that want to go that route.
Comment from Vincent de Phily on 26 April 2011 at 10:47
It's a little bit depressing to see yet another complain about the process, leading to a decision to decline the new license. You should keep in mind that
* the decision to change the license (and the text of the license) took plenty of time and open discussion, involving any contributor who cared about the issue.
* once that license-change decision was taken, deleting (with backups of course) any data that is still under the old license is the only course of action that makes sense. It is pointless to have one without the other.
* Complaining about the license change, the license text, or the change process should have been done about a year ago, sorry. Now is the time to decide wether the ODbL is acceptable for your past and/or future contributions.
* If you're going to decline the new license, please pretty-please make that decision based on the text of the new license compared to the text of the old license (which you have agreed to when you initially registered).
And by the way, really... The spirit of the ODbL is pretty much the same as the CC-BY-SA. The change was needed essentially because CC-foobar licenses aren't designed for the type of data the OSM hosts; I see it more as a technical change than an ethical one.
Comment from firefly2560 on 26 April 2011 at 12:57
What's this crap about years of discussion? I have been mapping for a couple of years, and I didn't even know that a change was being considered until I started reading threads in the OSM-Aus email list. I never received any notification from OSM that anything was changing, so how can anyone claim the discussion was open?
Comment from davespod on 26 April 2011 at 13:24
I understand why the legalese of the CTs can seem a little scary. However, you have said: "I am quite happy to abandon any and all of my rights to it and for OSM to do with it what they will". It seems to me that the CTs are only asking you to grant certain rights to your data to the OSMF, not even to "abandon all of your rights" (to my mind abandoning all of your rights would mean you could not also grant rights to other people under any terms you liked, which you can). Do you not agree? And do the CTs not make clear that it is precisely the OSM community that can decide what can later be done with your data.
I realise you have concerns about the process that got us here. But given where we are, what is stopping you from moving forward? Your message implies you would be quite happy to put all of your edits into the public domain. Am I therefore right in thinking that it is only the legalistic language that you have a problem with? If so, that is, for better or for worse, the world we live in. If you have ever registered with almost any other web site, chances are you will have "signed" a legal agreement of some sort. Have you ever signed up to Youtube, Vimeo, Hotmail, Gmail, .... ? If so, I suggest you go back and have a look at what you agreed to. For that matter, the full wording of CC-by-SA 2.0, the legal agreement you have already agreed in order to grant rights to OSMF and the rest of the world is pretty darn legalistic (and very long):
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode
Of course, most of us are more familiar with the human readable summary:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
There is a human readable summary of the CTs here:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary
It is worth noting that even where there is not legalistic language, you can be entering a legal agreement. You enter an unwritten contract every time you go to buy something in a shop (or more likely a written one if you buy online). You entered a legal agreement when you originally signed up for OSM, too (details of that agreement are under the human readable summary above).
I understand a small number of people have many different reasons for not wishing to agree to the CTs, but I would find it very sad if fear the language used lost the project valuable contributions.
(I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice!)
Comment from SK53 on 26 April 2011 at 14:33
@firefly. I'm sorry its news to you but on the wiki and IIRC on the OSM site there have been flash messages about the license change for several weeks.
The likelihood of a change in the license was something I was aware of from the wiki at the time I signed up in Dec. 2008. There has been a huge amount of discussion about this since (if not before) the Manchester SotM conference in 2007. The talk-legal mailing list is more or less dedicated to thrashing around the license issue. I don't think a day goes by without changes on the wiki to license related information. The JOSM flash screen has information about it. There are any number of blog posts and diary entries about it. AND it's been a particular talking point for Australian mappers, in part because of NearMap and Government Data licensing terms.
Obviously its possible to miss all this: and then it comes as a nasty surprise. But to say "all this crap about years of discussion" is wrong. Please don't blame others for not keeping your ears and eyes open.
Comment from mce on 26 April 2011 at 15:27
Hi davespod. Everything you say is very reasonable, and it was indeed only the legalese that stopped me signing up.
Actually I am not frightened by legal documents, but in this case I do have doubts about whether I can lawfully grant the rights required without qualification. We could argue about whether I am right or wrong to have these doubts but this is, so some extent, beside the point and in any case this would not be the right forum.
What really concerns me is that large amounts of perfectly data are likely to be thrown away when they were contributed in good faith and in strict compliance with the rules as they were understood at the time. Surely this is unnecessary and it is almost a case of biting off one's nose to spite one's face. There really should be a way to offer a PD option for people to donate their data on the basis that it can be cleaned up later if necessary.
Sorry for being awkward, but the reaction from other contributors does suggest that I am not alone in this. If it is any comfort, I do not have online banking either, because I read the terms and conditions on the website, and then hit the Cancel button.
Comment from chriscf on 27 April 2011 at 01:16
And I only said that complaining about it now when you were happy to do exactly the same thing when you signed up in the first place makes you a big fat hypocrite.
In what way do you have doubts that you could grant the rights required? It's certainly not an issue with the OpenData - CT asks you to grant a licence to do any act restricted by copyright, the OS grants you a licence to do any act restricted by copyright. Attribution is not your problem.
Comment from mce on 27 April 2011 at 02:50
I suppose I shouldn't, but I think I rather resent the use of the word "fat" :)
Comment from mce on 27 April 2011 at 07:09
Folks, I think I have now said all I have to say.
Perhaps it has helped to clear the air, perhaps not. In any case, thanks for listening.
Comment from jutezak on 27 April 2011 at 20:42
I am wondering why the map is not with a mixed license - like how for example the Linux kernel contains GPL code, but also code under other licenses.
Is it that the parts cannot be separated? If they cannot be separated at download time ("please download only the CC licensed bits" vs "download the map that is licensed under ODbL and CC") they cannot be separated now, I'd think.