Re:Google Maps is about to get a lot more ads
by maxerickson on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @01:41PM
(#11771597)
I think if there was no share back requirement you would still have one project that would be the social nexus of the data. Forking and closing the database just to add some trails in Wyoming would not make much sense (as a silly example).
In essence, careful respect for the license isn't the main driver for contribution.
I think it would certainly lead to more competitors, people would take the data and do their own value add, but I think it is quite an open question whether they would be able to actually become considerably better databases.
(I'm roughly indifferent to the share back requirement. I don't think it is needed but given how much support there is for it in the community it isn't worth discussing over and over)
Re:Google Maps is about to get a lot more ads
by legulere on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @01:52PM
(#11771684)
It's a bit more complex. The licensing restriction is really just a restriction that data you mix with OSM data also needs to be ODbL, because other data under ODbL can't be incorporated back into OSM. Mixing two geodata sets is a pretty common thing to do, but you can't do that as easily with OSM data because of ODbL (I think it has something to do with the crediting).
Some companies have been interested in using and contributing back to OSM data, but didn't go further, because of the license.
Why do you think a fork that lacks the advantage of a free license can become a threat to the continued existence of a project?
From OSM:
> You are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt our data, as long as you credit OpenStreetMap and its contributors. If you alter or build upon our data, you may distribute the result only under the same license.
How is this not an absolute necessity for the long term success of the project? Without it, someone can just slurp up the data, add their own, and then shut OSM out.