I have listed some theoretical options, but practically, there’s currently only one option: ODbL. This will be enforced by the OpenStreetMap foundation, a non-profit organisation which aims for the following:
OpenStreetMap is an open initiative to create and provide free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them.
The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling the project. It is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share.
Membership is open to all who can afford the annual fee:
Members of the Foundation are entitled to vote in the affairs of the Foundation. They have no special say in how the OpenStreetMap project is run, just the running of the Foundation. Anyone who wants to influence the activities of the Foundation is welcome to join.
As of 9th March 2009, the Foundation has exactly 114 fully paid-up members.
Full Membership
Full membership is available to all. The membership fee is £15 per year and enables you to influence the direction of OpenStreetMap by being able to vote in elections for officers of the foundation. Members may also get discounts on some OSMF organised events (such as the State of the Map conference). You do not have to be a member in order to use or contribute to OpenStreetMap.
The written intention is more than honourable, though the perception within the project might differ. The OSMF seems to be the driving force in establishing the ODbL. According to the rather ambitious schedule, the OSMF board will ask the OSMF members if the ODbL should be suggested as the new license for the OSM project. This will happen from 2009-03-31 plus two weeks. It is interesting that only members “as of 23rd January” are allowed to vote. From the outside this looks as if the OSMF already has voted for the ODbL internally and wants to effectively secure the result of the voting. According to the aforementioned page, the OSMF also has created the proceeding and schedule of the license change:
* OSMF Board first considers endorsing licence and asks OSMF members (as of 23rd January) to vote (2 week, after 1 week we will send out a reminder to people who haven’t yet responded) on whether ODbL 1.0 should be put to the community for adoption.
* If the OSMF so decides, it will send an email to OSMF members.
There are some more interesting bits in this page like “People who have made zero edits are automatically moved over to new license and are emailed a notice.”. This reads a bit as, in case of a political election, “all voters who do not vote are automatically counted as votes for the government party”. Or this one: “Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a requirement to ultimately remove the users data.”. Ah, mappers who are unsure are urged to agree to the ODbL. Further, the OSMF already has asked data providers in advance: “Large data imports where permission has been given previously (AND, GeoBase etc) are asked formally to agree to release their data under the ODbL.”. Interesting. The license was neither released nor has any mapper been asked, but major data providers already have agreed?!? Well, here’s the complete section:
* Website only allows you to log in and use API when you have set yes/no on new license. New signups agree to both licenses. Sign up page still says dual licensing so that we can release planet etc. People who have made zero edits are automatically moved over to new license and are emailed a notice.
* Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a requirement to ultimately remove the users data. (no decision to actually remove data from the central database yet… ) This will help stop people accidentally clicking ‘no’. Sign up page now states you agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL.
* Large data imports where permission has been given previously (AND, GeoBase etc) are asked formally to agree to release their data under the ODbL. (informal communications ongoing lead up to this point led by the working group and the groups/individuals who worked on the imports).+ 2 weeks?
* Require people to respond to the licensing question. How? Should we deny API access otherwise?
Obviously, there is no real choice for the projects members. People who are unsure about the license are urged to agree, and mappers who dislike the new license must fear that they are excluded from mapping and that their data was deleted.
During the summer months, two important events will happen: The State of the Map conference, and the OSMF board election. In my opinion, the OSMF tries to get the change to the ODbL done until then, at any cost, just to avoid that both events will prove that there are too many project and (new) OSMF members not willing to accept the ODbL.
I personally made no choice yet, but the whole behaviour of the OSMF makes it very difficult to agree in the ODbL. Not for licensing reasons, but for political reasons. Some short cites of the OSMF web presence:
The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling the project.
It is important to understand that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is not the same thing as the OpenStreetMap project. The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data.
Hear hear. Seems those sections are rather dated and need maintenance.
