An interesting discussion has been initated on the OpenStreetMap blog about whether the share-alike requirement of OpenStreeMap's Open Database License (ODbL) is actually hindering the wider use of OpenStreetMap data. The ODbL requires attribution and share-alike for spatial data and databases.
Share-alike means that if raw OpenStreetMap data is mixed with raw third party data to create a new dataset that is released publicly, you are required to release the resulting dataset under the same ODbL license. It extends the ODbL to data sets OpenStreetMap data is mixed with. The blog post suggests that organizations or individuals who want to mix OpenStreetMap data with third party data often can't because they aren't in a position to make licensing decisions about the third party data.
The analogous discussion in source code would be about the viral nature of the GPL license versus a license like the Eclipse license that allows proprietary and open source code to be mixed. A commercial organization that wants to add its proprietary code to open source code and sell the resulting product would not be able to under the GPL unless their proprietary code were also released under GPL. With a license like the Eclipse license the company could do this. In fact it has been argued that a mix of proprietary and open source code is a commercially viable busness strategy. In the source code world I think that the market has decided that there is a place for both the GPL and Eclipse-like licenses.
Subscribe
Comments