[Osmf-talk] Share Alike images

[sotm at livingwithdragons.com]

I just wrote a reply on the wiki, and only afterwards saw this e-mail.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Making_Copies_of_your_maps_may_not_be_allowed
I think it is a good point for voting yes on ODbL. I would echo with 
agreement what Matt says at the end "a lot of effort goes into creating 
a really good map which i think should be rewarded".

Yet it also encourages/allows map images to be licensed under CC, PD, 
case-by-case use agreements. This applies to direct renders (displaying 
factual data in a pleasing colour tone) and artistic uses (e.g. painting 
wavy roads, but loosely following the roads in an geographic area).

Gregory Marler
http://www.livingwithdragons.com


Matt Amos wrote:
> Erik Johansson wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Erik Johansson wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Anything that was CC-By-SA is always share alike, the ODBL leaves that
>>>> SA philosophy altogether.
>>>>         
>>> No, not leaves it altogether - reduces it to data.
>>>       
>> Being able to remix is the spirit of CC-by-SA, so this is a huge
>> change for me.  So It seems no one has a good argument for removing
>> Share Alike from the license.
>>     
>
> you're referring to share-alike on the images? the proposal isn't 
> suggesting removing share-alike on the data, it's suggesting adding it.
>
> i've already stated my argument for removing share-alike requirements on 
> the creative output of other people. you clearly don't think it is 
> "good". ;-)
>
>   
>> If being able to use rendered images of their own "geodata" isn't
>> important for most people, then I could reconsider. But with the
>> current voting we have no way of knowing what people think of this.
>>     
>
> being able to use images of our own geodata rendered by other people 
> isn't important to me. what is important to me is that the geodata 
> itself remain usable, open and free.
>
> the current voting includes a survey, one question of which is how do 
> you feel about "requir[ing] maps, map tiles and other items created from 
> OSM data to be available under a fixed, viral license." you probably 
> want to choose "strongly want" for that.
>
>   
>>> Everyone "controls" the map he makes. Even today, if you are unhappy with how OSM
>>> data is represented on a map, CC-BY-SA doesn't magically make different maps
>>> appear.
>>>       
>> CC-by-SA does make my maps magically appear in a way that is
>> "guaranteed to be" usable for me. The only way CC-by-SA doesn't
>> magically produce is that it doesn't give me access to the style
>> sheets you used to create your map, which btw ODBL doesn't do either
>> even though it's a database (or?).
>>     
>
> i'm pretty sure the stylesheets aren't a database. even if they were, 
> they're an input to the renderer, not a derivative of the OSM data, so 
> they wouldn't have to be released.
>
>   
>> And yes I think all of you who says Openstreetmap is just about the
>> database are wrong, it has always been about the creativity in
>> creating a map and the biggest product of this is the rendered map.
>>     
>
> that's your point of view, but i've always felt that the data is far 
> more important than the map for two reasons; i can recreate the map from 
> the data, and a lot of effort goes into creating a really good map which 
> i think should be rewarded.
>
> cheers,
>
> matt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091206/0cdf3d72/attachment.html>