Also, even though the license is CC-BY-SA, section 1.2 of the T&C prohibits commercial use. Further, I see no data dumps provided (or statement of intent to provide some eventually), unlike OSM, StackExchange, Wikimedia projects.
Last, the smartphone app seems to be closed-source. (If it is open-source, I couldn't find the source.)
It is great news that people are trying to develop a Google Street View replacement, but OSM's will to let people use this data to improve OSM (like they do for Bing satellite imagery) doesn't imply that this project is as free as OSM.
Also we do give attribution to photographers under every single photo.
(I'm on the Mapillary team)
e.g. Business plans: http://www.mapillary.com/business.html "The commercial plans only regulate the use of the APIs, the photos are still under Creative Commons."
Or it's dual-licenced... As I read the comment you are responding to, one could pick the license they like. If they pick CC-BY-SA, then they will have to share-alike and provide attribution, but it's allowed in commercial projects. If they want to use it in a non-commercial project, then they can use the T&C license and don't need to provide attribution.
I am not a lawyer, but I've seen dual-licensed projects before. Please do correct me if I'm wrong about this though.
openstreetmap.org doesn't have a Street View function. Mapillary has been integrated into the default _editor_ (the wonderful iD) as an aid to mapping. It's not exposed to non-editing users.
So they've got their work cut out for them. That said, at one point I wasn't that optimistic about open street map either, and all of a sudden it seems like they now have very good data - at least where I live.
Congrats to Mapillary for becoming the default street view. I hope to help in my neck of the woods!
