Looks like the only permissively licensed part is the "Places" dataset provided by Meta and Microsoft https://docs.overturemaps.org/release-notes/data-attribution... so the volunteers being coopted are e.g. people who made a Facebook page for their business?

Any new data not in OSM is under a separate dataset and not under a copyleft license, so anyone contributing to that in the future means that their data might be used in a proprietary map.

In general, this seems to be more aimed as a corporate-friendly replacement of OSM where instead of volunteers, its companies with satellite data and phone data and AIs and only the end result is shared, not the process. So you're right that its not really being unfair to the OSM community whose data they seem to only reluctantly want (because it's copyleft) and have kept as such.

I am worried though that if if this gets popular, that OSM will be starved for funding and contributors

> anyone contributing to that in the future means that their data might be used in a proprietary map

But overture doesn’t generally allow the type of contributions OSM allows. There is no volunteer to map out a set of houses or streets. Allowed types of contributions are large mapping datasets, typically of the type explicitly disallowed from being imported to OSM.

> But overture doesn’t generally allow the type of contributions OSM allows.

this is cyclical.

the data they contribute is generated by people who freely contributed this data to Microsoft et al.

then Microsoft takes ownership of the data, package in their proprietary data sets, and here we are.

Sorry this is beyond your point, which stands correct, I just want to nitpick:

> Allowed types of contributions are large mapping datasets, typically of the type explicitly disallowed from being imported to OSM.

Depends on license. There are mass imports in OSM.