[hmsimha]

I stopped reading after the first example. If there are no restrictions on the usage, Google can just use all of OSM's data without having to share anything in return. The real selling point for OSM, in my opinion, is that by crowdsourcing its data it has the potential to far surpass the quality of any other dataset. If there are no restrictions on its usage, this hope becomes futile -- the gatekeepers of privately owned datasets will reap the benefits of contributions to OSM without offering anything in return.

[dageshi]

Agreed, I don't believe OSM could have survived without this license, I don't think the contributors who put so much time into building it would have done so if they thought that realistically much of their contribution would have gone to bolstering google's bottom line as opposed to creating an alternative to google maps.

[belorn]

I am sure I would not have contributed to OSM map if the licensed allowed google to just take everything.

That would be me working for google for free, and I value my time more. It is enough that my tax money goes to make maps that google later buys.

[dllthomas]

For what it's worth, I probably would have contributed if it was not share alike. That said, my contribution was minor and I think keeping share-alike is the right move.

[timthorn]

Moving to the ODBL occurred reasonably recently in OSM history. At the time, there was an amount of argument and PD had a lot of support.

[1ris]

I think PD had a lot of support not only because people liked the implications for osm, but because there is somewhat unlikely it's even possible in many countries to copyright this data.

[exelius]

This is the GPL argument applied to data; and while for GPL there's a certain tinfoil-hat logic that has been unfortunately proven right by the NSA, I don't know that it holds for OSM since one data set plus another dataset just makes a superset. That benefits everyone.

There are companies out there that go to great expense to create their own maps: Google is one of them, but others exist as well. I don't think OSM is trying to be the One True Map (tm). In that sense, I see no problem with Google using OSM's data and not sharing back: it still fulfills OSMs mission of making mapping better for everyone. Yeah, OSM alone isn't as high quality as OSM+Google, but who cares? Eventually, many companies will likely decide that the cost of maintaining their own mapping databases is just too high and start committing to OSM instead. Probably never Google, but there are other, smaller companies out there without the resources and self-driving cars that Google has.

Tl;dr: OSM is not hurt by allowing other parties to maintain their own datasets at their own expense. Inevitably some will choose to just contribute to OSM, which is good for everyone.

[ekr]

I don't know how you arrived to that conclusion. OSM's success, popularity is determined largely by the quality of its service compared to other providers, which in turn determines the amount of user contribution. By allowing Google/Apple to use this data, their marginal value in relation to OSM increases, which in turn disincentivizes potential users from using OSM, thus making the project less popular.

Google/Apple already benefit from superior distribution/marketing, but lack in quality (at least in geo-data, many have reported OSM to have more roads, better coverage. Most of the paths, trails in the forests and mountains where I live are covered by OSM, which is why I use OSM while mountain-biking. Google is far from reaching that. Others have reported similar findings.)

Thus, as I see it, OSM is giving away for free its main superiority.

(Alas, in the name of the Church of Emacs, OSM, stop this non-sense).

[crististm]

A... What? So _because_ Google builds their maps at their expense they are _entitled_ to use OSM and you see no problem with them not sharing back?

[exelius]

No; because Google builds maps at their own expense, combining them with OSM to create a superset would make mapping better for everyone.

Google is actually probably the worst example here (if the most visible): they have the least incentive to share and likely never will. But if OSM becomes the de-facto standard database for mapping (as it almost certainly would if it were a more commercial-friendly license) the mere fact that so many more people are engaging with it on a daily basis would increase the contribution rate.

From a pure logistical sense, very few companies have the resources that Google does. I'm saying it's better for OSM to allow a situation where Google gets something from OSM and OSM gets nothing back from Google because OSM likely would get a lot back from a lot of other parties. It simply doesn't make sense for them to maintain their own data sets in the long term; but in the short term they can't even use OSM so they have no alternative.

[nateabele]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[1ris]

No, this was just a pointed paraphrasing of exelius' argument.

[Vik1ng]

> it still fulfills OSMs mission of making mapping better for everyone. Yeah, OSM alone isn't as high quality as OSM+Google, but who cares?

One of the main reason I contribute to OpenStreetMap is because I don't like googles monopoly position. Yes, it's not a real one, but youtube, maps and search are pretty close. I can't do much against search, I can help a bit by using vimeo & Co, but with OpenStreetMap I can really contribute a lot to create a great alternative to companies and app developers out there.

[freehunter]

If you kept reading, you'd see them answer this question directly:

If we dropped share-alike, nothing would stop players like Google or Apple from mixing OpenStreetMap data extensively into their mobile maps. And this is a good thing. OpenStreetMap's opportunity is not to compete and win against the Google Maps of the world, but to say what's on their maps.

[alrs]

No. I really don't care to help Google or Apple, and I would prefer it if their proprietary mapping solutions failed. I don't want OSM data in their products.

[yellowbkpk]

Who should get to use OSM data then? If you don't want to see Google or Apple use OSM data, then who do you think should?

At this point the only users of OSM data are creating differently-colored maps based on OSM data. No one has attempted to go above and beyond that into improving the map data because of the licensing implications.

[alrs]

Apple and Google are totally allowed to use OSM data, they just can't close it up, DRM it, and stick it in an app store.

Mozilla is going "above and beyond" to build a dataset of wifi ap mac addresses and cell towers on top of OSM.

https://github.com/mozilla/MozStumbler

https://wiki.mozilla.org/CloudServices/Location

There is no shortage of OSM-based apps available on f-droid:

https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=openstreetma...

[1ris]

People who prefer the better maps?

And, yes no commercial operator has improved the map data, because of the license. But do you think these people/enties will suddenly give back just because they are no longer required to do so? Sorry, but I don't see much sense in this.

And by the way: This is wrong. There was a proprietary renderer that produced very nice maps with a combination of OSM data and non free relief data.

[oftenwrong]

Google and Apple can use OSM data. They just cannot use it to improve their own data. I think that is fine. If they want to improve their own data, they will have to improve OSM.

[1ris]

Nothing stops Apple from mixing OpenStreetMap data extensively into their mobile maps with a share alike model. They just don't want to. And why should I change my mind and not Apple? I'm not making any money from this, so i think it's Apples move.

[pessimizer]

Why is that a good thing, and is it really OSM's goal to power all of the maps in the world? Why?

[Karunamon]

>by crowdsourcing its data

Google does this too. https://www.google.com/mapmaker