[OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 13 06:02:00 GMT 2009
2009/12/13 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> If geodata is not copyrightable, then Share Alike is meaningless. The
> original work is public domain, and the modified work is also public domain.
Assuming public domains is a valid option, which isn't valid in all
jurisdictions. Even where PD is valid if you modify it and choose a
license which can be upheld it is no longer PD any more.
> The point is, whichever way it's decided, it'll be the same for the modified
> data as it is for the original data. If the OSM database is not
> copyrightable, neither will the modified database be. If the OSM database
> is copyrightable, then the modified database must be.
Just because certain copyrights don't exists in some jursidictions
doesn't mean they aren't valid in others. Which is the whole reason
for ODBL, because geodata may not be considered copyrightable in some
areas a new method of enforcing the same thing CC-BY-SA is needed.
> ODBL is trying to enforce requirements beyond "If you alter, transform, or
> build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the
> same or similar license to this one." Most significantly, a requirement to
> "offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a
> machine readable form of [...] The Derivative Database (under a.) or
> alteration file (under b.)". That is not at all a requirement of CC-BY-SA.
> It is something completely new that is being added, which IMO makes things
> less free, not more free.
I'm still waiting for proper legal advice in an Australia context,
however I agree with what I think is trying to be achieved by ODBL,
but the devil is in the details.
> If you'd prefer that, fine. But please be honest about this - the ODbL is
> more than just a more enforceable version of the spirit of CC-BY-SA. The
How is this different than the requirements of the GPL where you need
to make changes available if you distribute binaries?
> requirements go beyond requiring derivative works to be licensed under the
> same license. Most significantly, the ODbL requires people to offer copies
> of any derivative databases that are used in the making of the final
> derivative work. Among other things, that means having to keep copies of
> such databases, something which is not always done (if I want to alter the
> database, render tiles, and then throw out the altered database, I'm not
> able to do that, because I have to offer people copies of the altered
Again, this is no different than requirements of GPL software.
There is no way everyone is going to be happy as a result of this,
that's human nature, people are influenced and motivated by various
things, a lot of people agree with the GPL, at lot of people don't
which is why you end up with others using BSD and other similar
In the case of commercial mapping companies since they don't
distribute their raw data requiring them to distribute changes only if
you distribute raw data is almost meaningless so I can see why some
people see this as a good thing, I can also see why such commercial
companies would dislike such a requirement.
If you want to push your data as PD that's fine, tag the change set as
PD when you upload and problem solved then such data can be extracted
regardless what other data is licensed as then everyone is happy, of
course this only counts in countries that have a notion of PD
otherwise people in those countries wouldn't be able to use such data
either. Ain't it grand having lawyers make laws? :)
More information about the talk