[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
osm at inbox.org
Fri Nov 19 13:32:35 GMT 2010
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> Anthony <osm at ...> writes:
>>>>So a license from, say, MapQuest,
>>>>granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
>>>...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
>>>map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data,
>>Well, depends on what you mean by that. MapQuest certainly can
>>(physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the
>>bottom of the screen saying "this map tile is released under
> Right, and I could photocopy today's Financial Times and put the same notice
> on it, but that's not what I mean by 'can' or 'cannot'.
Okay, I figured you didn't. But I still don't know what you do mean.
>>And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing
>>so. Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably
>>irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing
>>so. Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that
>>the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against
>>copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing
>>(etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA.
>>On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA,
>>if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL.
> Right. (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here
> disagree with.)
Which part of the interpretation do you question? It's quite plain
that ODbL doesn't allow sublicensing. On the other hand, yes, DbCL
does. So another, separate question, is what in the world the DbCL is
supposed to apply to (a question I've asked here before, and which
received several contradictory answers).
If the data embedded in the Produced Work is DbCL, then yeah, you can
sublicense it under any license you want. Of course, that would mean
that there's nothing wrong with recreating a database from that
I think you've explained the situation correctly in the past, and
we're almost completely in agreement. Either the produced work can't
be CC-BY, or you can reverse engineer the produced work to create a
However, I present a practical problem to that. What if it's
technically illegal to create a CC-BY produced work, but OSMF refuses
to enforce that?
> Ah - so although you are authorized to distribute produced works, those who
> receive them may not be authorized to distribute them further. This may be
> the crux of the issue.
Others are authorized to distribute them further (so long as they
include/offer the underlying db/changes). But aren't authorized to
put them back in DB form.
But, as I've said, I don't see how you can characterize such a work as
truly CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA.
More information about the legal-talk