[OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change
eda at waniasset.com
Wed Nov 17 11:19:01 GMT 2010
Grant Slater <openstreetmap at ...> writes:
>>I think it's pretty clear that data, if derived from the OSM data, would need
>>to be distributed under the same share-alike terms.
>Yes under CC-BY-SA only the product created from the data.
I don't think this is a meaningful distinction - or else I am not understanding
you correctly. The OSM planet file, for example, is a product created from the
OSM data, by putting it into a convenient XML format. Are you really saying
that copyright does not apply to the planet file? It is data, and is
copyright, and thus must be distributed under CC-BY-SA or not at all. The
Oxford English Dictionary is also just a big lump of data, but is indisputably
covered by copyright too.
>I'm part of the sysadmin team and LWG. There are no plans to restrict
>OSM.org tiles now or in the future. (subject to
>On an adoption of ODbL the OSM tiles will most likely remain CC-BY-SA
As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain?
>>>But I'm not really talking about infringements per se; I'm talking about
>>>circumventing the spirit of CC-BY-SA within the letter of CC-BY-SA. The
>>>"computer-generated derivative" previously discussed here and on
>>>cc-community is the obvious example; you can avoid having to share if you
>>>combine on the client rather than the server.
>>That's more interesting. Yes, you can run a program on your local computer
>>to download data (or any copyrighted work, really) and make manipulations to
>I am misunderstandin; local changes (non-distributed) on ODbL licensed
>data are not restricted.
I thought Richard F. above was implying that ODbL had the power to stop people
making, for example, a local client program which downloads OSM data plus some
proprietary data set, combining it locally, and using it without distributing
it further. If so, that would be a rather nasty licence condition. But I may
not have got what he meant.
>At the moment under CC-BY-SA we have a ver fuzzy set of ideas/rules
>what is and what isn't allowed. Sure ODbL+DbCL+CTs is more text, but
>things are a lot clearer cut.
I am not sure because there are so many fuzzy concepts which don't get nailed
down - like the seemingly nonsensical distinction between the map 'database'
and the 'database contents', or the vague definition of Produced Work.
A licence written specifically about maps and geodata and using more specific
terms would work a lot better.
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>
More information about the legal-talk