Growing agreement to CT & relicensing OSM Data
by Pascal Neis - Published: December 21st, 2010
In the past I did some blog posts about the “Growing agreement to contributor terms” here and here. Both posts showed the amount of OpenStreetMap contributors who accepted the new CTs every day during each time frame (about 55 contributors a day). I created a new diagram that includes the past four weeks:
Overall for the past month about 57 accepted the new CT every day. This is nearly the same amount as during the months that have been analyzed before. But what does this exactly mean for the relicensable OSM data? Almost 2 months ago I did a post about the “Change of OSM object numbers through relicensing”. At this time there were about 55% of all OSM Nodes and 47% of all OSM Ways available for relicensing (you can find my post here).
I repeated this analysis with the current OSM data: In the first attempt I used the last modifier of an OSM object (node/way/relation) as the owner of the object. During the second analysis I used the creator (version=”1″) as the owner of the object.
In my OSM-user-database of 12/15/2010 a total of 111310* members are the “owners” of the following OSM objects (* Notice: Not every member of the OSM project has contributed!):
- Number of nodes: 878201891
- Number of ways: 73825397
- Number of relations: 790100
(Current status of the OSM database statistics are here)
As of Dec. 19 th, 2010 (16:00), 6076 Users have accepted the new license. 25487 new OSM members (uid >= 286582) have accept the new contributor terms automatically. I created the following numbers of OSM objects, which will be available for relicensing (at the above mentioned date of my data). If you assume that the last modifier is the owner of the object: (the numbers in brackets represent the percentage of the total objects!)
- Number of nodes: 584163816 (66,52%) (as of 10/10/2010 it was 55,89%)
- Number of ways: 45536248 (61,68%) (as of 10/10/2010 it was 47,56%)
- Number of relations: 491014 (62,14%) (as of 10/10/2010 it was 31,06%)
I did the same analysis with a second dataset in which the creator (version=”1″) is also the owner of the OSM object (my table is based on the full-history-dump of October 22, 2010). A total of 109005 members created:
- Number of nodes: 911411022
- Number of ways: 75235513
- Number of relations: 1151219
And the following numbers of OSM objects (version=”1″) will be available for relicensing:
- Number of nodes: 586598103 (64,36%) (as of 08/01/2010 it was 54,24%)
- Number of ways: 44844834 (59,60%) (as of 08/01/2010 it was 46,78%)
- Number of relations: 480370 (41,73%)
Notice: The last numbers of OSM objects could contain deleted objects too. I only checked and counted the version=”1″ of a object. So probably the numbers for relicensing OSM objects (version=”1″) should be smaller!
However, in my opinion the results are interesting enough to publish them here anyway.
Can anyone confirm these absolute numbers?
thx @ dennis !
I can at least confirm, that we got the same numbers for “last edited” nodes, ways and relations on http://odbl.de in the world stats.
But as we didn’t use the full history dump we have slightly different numbers for “version 1” nodes, ways and relations, because in the normal dump we only have version 1 data which was not altered after creating.
I’d like to know which data is transferred to the ODbL database. How many conrtibutions to a node have to be ODbL to accept them for the new database? A 100 % or less?
@wicking
Interesting question! I think probably 100%, but to the best of my knowledge the OSMF did not mention anything about that yet. Or has anyone further information ?
I accepted the new licensing terms because I *had* to, what other option is there? Having my contributions replaced so people have to spend more time working on OSM…
I’m still not convinced it’s the best move, that the new licence is too young and untested, not to mention it would have been great to work with CC to produce a licence under their umbrella (they are recognisable to people).
Didn’t accept public domain offer, because I believe in copyleft being the right thing to do. Not sure why OSM even considered it.