ODbL Use Cases Illustrated

Update in progress.

The OpenStreetMap project is anticipating a license change. In fact the project has been anticipating this change for a while. Now it seems imminent.

A draft license for the database was released Friday, 27 February 2009 along with a data license. The proposal for consideration is, "Should OpenStreetMap transition from cc-by-sa, to ODbL?" I say "Yes." Why we need to transition away from cc-by-sa has been offered elsewhere. Here is why ODbL is the license to which we should transition.

OpenStreetMap has always promoted the idea that you can do interesting things with the map data and map tools. The ODbL makes this very clear and makes it simple to use OpenStreetMap in creative and useful ways while protecting and preserving the database for everybody else as well. It also makes it very easy to comply with the license. My understanding of the license is this (illustrations follow):

1. You may use the ODbL OSM database for something personal, for research, or within your company[1] without publishing the Produced Work, in any way that you like. Combine it with other stuff, plan your next big success, create interesting things. You have no obligations to the license beyond this. You may not publish it, give it away or convey it beyond your research paper, company planning room or office party. If you want to sell it give it away or put it on your blog, you want to look at the following use cases.
2. You use the OSM data in any way you choose without changing it. Create anything except another database[2] from the database, use that thing any way that you please and license that thing any way that you care to license it. These things are called Produced Works and you can give them away, sell them, use them in any endeavor. Your obligation to the license is to attribute OpenStreetMap in a sensible way.
   

   This DOCUMENT TYPE contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL).

   It can include your own copyright and license. All pretty cool. I have another use case that may require a specific waiver in the license. That will be the next article.

3. Update in progress. The question of what triggers the Derivative Database Share Alike requirement is still open for discussion.
   You may make changes to the OSM database and satisfy your ShareAlike obligations in two different ways. These will be familiar to F/LOSS developers; I call them upstream and fork.
   1. You may make changes and send the changes back to the main database at OpenStreetMap.org you are using the Upstream method. You can then pull your own update from OpenStreetMap and proceed to use the database for your Produced Works. Attribution is still required.
   2. You may also make changes to the OSM database and provide the changes to the community yourself under the ODbL. You can provide either the entire database, or the changeset / diff to get from the version you received from OSM to your version but you are obliged to provide it under the ODbL essentially forking the database. The additional burden of packaging and hosting your forked DB or changeset is small but non-zero. The upstream method avoids having to merge changes changes from two sources as well. I would expect that most people will opt to use the upstream method rather than this more complicated fork method.
4. The license has a no reverse engineering clause that I find delightful. Traditional reverse engineering involves trying to find out what is under the hood without releasing the hood latch. There is no hood latch and no hood because the database is Open. So this clause is more accurately called a Don't try to get around the ODbL by downloading small portions of the data and then recombining them into your proprietary database, you jerk, Clause.

For now, the Open Database License (ODbL) draft license is ready for review, and the Factual Information License (FIL) draft is ready for review as well. Have a look at them and let your voice be heard. If you find the license discussion tiresome, I suggest that you trust the community members that are deeply interested in this topic to make the right decision, then follow
their lead. Waiting a few weeks and then deciding to speak up seems like a really bad idea.

Feel free to comment here, particularly if you have comments on the illustrations or my understanding of the license. Comments over at legal talk are also welcome.

[1]Company or other entity. Probably your school, municipality, Non-profit would apply as well
[2]I have paraphrased this. Specifically permitted are images, map tiles, printed maps, sound files like turn instructions, audio/video like party renders. This is a great start.