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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Google does this too. https://www.google.com/mapmaker
I just want to add: If i wanted my map data available "to the industry" (that BSD supporters claim can't use the GPL model) I would have used google map maker and not OSM. And i did not make this decision by accident, but because i believe in free software and free data. Please respect that. I think with dropping the copyleft osm makes itself superfluous and it will get replaced by the commercial products it once wanted to replace. There won't be a reason to choose osm over google anymore.
I want those who agree with the project's principals to use the dataset, not just anyone. OSM isn't just a collection of data, its open collaboration. Removing share-alike breaks the model of that collaboration.
1) Only a negligible fraction of people using maps.
It's no surprise this is coming from an employee of MapBox. Despite their incredible support of the OSM community through technical improvements, they are now a venture-backed company and are clearly looking for a massive exit of some sort. The author mentions Google, but it's actually MapBox that is best-positioned to basically co-opt OSM and create the dominant interface by which all users interact with OSM. Without ShareAlike, they are likely to begin walling off their data, or (just as well) making the underlying OSM infrastructure pointless in a variety of ways. Imagine if nobody visited or used Wikipedia directly because some other organization basically robbed of it relevancy. At first, it could be fine (Yay! Everything is better!), but in time it could be used to control the data, limit its access, and make the underlying project pointless. This is a possibility if OSM wasn't SA.
MapBox wasn't in quite such a strategic position when the ODbL debate was going on, but they were in the community so they could have spoken up then, but I have no idea if they did.
If you don't believe me, look at the licensing for their formerly-public-domain satellite imagery: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/idealab/mapbox-sells-custom-sat... "The 'Satellite' layer may be used to produce derivative data for the OpenStreetMap project. All other use for derivative data is prohibited."
the assumption that share-alike encourages contribution is a myth
If you want to work on an open source project, but your employer has a restrictive intellectual property agreement, then a share-alike clause can be the only thing allowing your work to get out at all. You can show your employer there's no way they can subvert the license agreement, and if they distribute it at all, they must use the same copyleft license.
I don't want to see my hard work sold large-scale in consumer electronics, just to enrich others, without contributing back at all.
With my code under a BSD license, I just want to improve the world. If anybody can to use my software, very good! If anybody can mash it up with other code to create something new, even better!
If they share the resulting code, its awesome! If they don't share it, there's still something new out there that is helpful for someone and that is still great!
When you have paid engineers using tools like OSM, they'll develop more tools for using it, build extensions. They offer valuable feedback on making it more attractive to other potential commercial users.
Having a tool like this used commercially, full-time by various teams is a catalyst, even though it's possible some of the same work would eventually be done by the open source community in time.
A lot of paid engineers work with OSM now, don't we? Ever since google raised rates, OSM seems to be a big player.
The thing is: Open Data is liked by proprietary software. Open Source software is liked by proprietary data.
It is the age old debate about MIT/BSD vs GPL.
the reason is that stuff like coordinates in wikipedia are widely derived from Google Maps or Google Earth. OSM community is concerned that is a violation of database rights or license. Is Google Maps open data? from Wikipedia perspective, coordinates are just facts and not-copyrightable and the US does not have database rights, so it's ok; OSM is based in europe where there are database rights and the community is concerned for other reasons, also and reluctant to accept such Wikipedia-derived contents into OSM.
ODBL isn't perfect but share-alike is important for OSM.
Why not? OSM still remains useful and authorative.
I see this in photography circles with Creative Commons. People choosing 'No Commmercial' clauses so that companies 'can't make money with my work'; but there is no negative impact on the photographer if a company does so, so why care?
If Google makes $100 million with my photograph, or with my OSM contributions, then that's dandy. It doesn't affect me and it doesn't undermine OSM.
> It doesn't affect me and it doesn't undermine OSM.
Just that that's exactly what it does. Google takes OSM data, combines it with their great services and gives nothing back and now there is less initiative for people to use OSM.
> People choosing 'No Commmercial' clauses so that companies 'can't make money with my work'; but there is no negative impact on the photographer if a company does so, so why care?
Yes there is. If you give it out for free when google would otherwise had payed it means that some photographer didn't get payed because you have it away for fee. So overall photographers befit if they all don''t give it out for free, because that means the company has to pay one of the if they need a picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_...
So, while the data would be protected in other places, such as the UK, it wouldn't necessarily be protected in the US.
But I guess you are mostly right, for many countries this is the case. OTOH there is a reason OSM prohibits scanning and tracing other commercial maps.
Switching to an open-but-not-share-alike license makes all of this easier.
The lawyers who wrote the ODBL understand this issue: check out how they define the word 'use' in section 1.
IANAL, yadda yadda.
Maps usually turn into pixels at some point and could be classified as a produced work regardless of modification. But it is difficult to be sure of this without talking to a lawyer.