[OSM-talk] Why the BSD vs GPL debate is irrelevant to OSM
ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Wed Dec 9 09:03:31 GMT 2009
Lutz Horn schrieb:
> Frederik Ramm <frederik <at> remote.org> writes:
>> This means that any share-alike provision we slap on OSM data has a much
>> more direct influence on the potential uses of the data than a
>> share-alike provision on software on on creative works has.
>> ODbL tries to reduce this problem by exempting "produced works" from the
>> share-alike effect, and this is a good thing, but still there will be
>> many use cases adversely affected by the remaining share-alike for data.
> Could you please explain why you consider this influence a problem?
> Actually I consider it a good thing. SA must apply for *both* data and produced
Then you have to vote against ODbL, which explicitly states that
produced work must not fall under the ODbL SA (4.5 b). However, the ODbL
states that any underlying database changes must be made available (4.6).
But where to draw the line?
If you produce a 2 hour film that shows OSM maps for a few mins, is this
a produced work or not? For me it's not.
If you provide an atlas of your city, that contains only maps and street
register all derived from OSM data, is this a produced work or not? For
me it is.
Unfortunately, I simply don't see a way to put that into a legal
document that would be valid all over the world.
More information about the talk