mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

383K
active users

@kathleenthelaw That's a bit rich when OSM uses a license which relies on sui generis #DatabaseRights and OSMF allegedly threatens to enforce them!

@nemobis OSM is powered by volunteers (myself included) and donations. If we were taxpayer-funded/staffed, I would fully support all the data being public domain.
(And btw, OSM does partner with government entities to harness volunteer efforts to produce public domain datasets that can be used for OSM and for anything else.)

@kathleenthelaw So you think Wikidata shouldn't be CC-0 either? Anyway I'm not arguing for CC-0 on OSM, I'm arguing for waiving the sui generis rights in the ODbL (or in a separate ToS condition). It makes it far easier to ask others to do the same.

@nemobis I'm very supportive of wikidata being CC-0, but I'll note that *Wikipedia* is not. Very similar underlying structural forces at work, with the difference being that database rights law is not a uniform as copyright law globally (and given the mess that is copyright law, that's really saying something)

@kathleenthelaw Wikipedia doesn't need its sources to waive database rights, but with CC BY-SA 4.0 we're doing our best to handle the database rights and make them irrelevant (in the hope they'll be repealed at some point).
creativecommons.org/licenses/b

creativecommons.orgLegal Code - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International - Creative Commons

@nemobis Wikipedia didn't need database rights to keep its volunteer efforts from being exploited by freeloaders while it was trying to establish itself; it had copyright. Try suggesting even now that it switch to CC-BY instead of CC-BY-SA.

@nemobis You've just dismissed my example of OpenStreetMap off-hand, so you're clearly not conversing in good faith.

@kathleenthelaw Sorry, I may have misunderstood. In what ways does OSM need database rights to establish itself? Are you implying they make ODbL litigation cheaper or easier to win, or something like that?

@nemobis It was even more important 10 years ago, as OSM is more established now, but concrete rights that are licensable are key to deter freeloaders from cherry-picking the best parts without contributing improvements.
Same principle behind GPL and CC-BY-SA (recall that OSM started off as CC-BY-SA, and ODbL was enacted in part as a *less* restrictive alternative).

@nemobis
The point is that using CC 4.0 for OGD, because of the restrictions that go far beyond just requiring attribution, doesn't even acheive what the regulation sets out to do.

As @kathleenthelaw points out #OpenStreetMap isn't a government and other considerations apply.

PS: it isn't as if the EU wasn't made aware of the issues multiple times.

@simon That's true and it's the reason years ago we got #Istat to use CC-BY-3.0-it which waives database rights (nowadays not the best option available).
istat.it/it/note-legali

It's far easier for us to make people waive their database rights when we show them that we do the same on Wikidata. A bit harder if our ask had been "please waive your monopoly so it can become my monopoly".

What good are database rights doing for OSM which you think doesn't apply for the public sector?

www.istat.itNote legali: responsabilità e licenza

@simon Again, I'm not suggesting CC-0 for OSM. I'm only concerned by the database rights. That's the important part for public sector GIS too, as most of it isn't copyrightable anyway.

@nemobis ... and the public sector shouldn't have an interest in keeping the data unfettered/free downstream as the whole point is creating an environment in which the data can be taken and anything can be done with it including using it in proprietary datasets.

OSM on the other hand wants participation back from data users (which is not a realistic thing with typical OGD).

@simon And how do database rights help with that?

@nemobis it makes the licence enforceable?

Note to the lawyers reading this for the sake of brevity lots of caveats omitted that should really be made.

@simon How so? What does it do that copyright wouldn't?

@nemobis @simon not a lawyer, but at least in the U.S., copyright doesn't apply to facts or ideas, just particular representations of them. So, maybe the database rights are to cover the sheer amount of _information_ OSM contributors have collected.

@mw That's exactly why it's bad.

@mw @nemobis this has literally been discussed to death.

There's no point in me repeating a good 14 years of discussion, decisions and experience here. OSM adopted the ODbL fully aware of the pros and cons, and fully aware of the legal situation (oh gosh, yes, they were not stupid dimwits). Literally everything on the topic is available in the OSMF and mailing lists archives.

It's a compromise, and as such has served the project surprisingly well, despite the odd wart.

@simon Yes, there's no point trying to change the OSM license. It doesn't hurt however to get ready for a future where hopefully the database rights get repealed.