[OSM-talk] WolframAlpha uses OpenStreetMap data
paperless at timmcnamara.co.nz
Wed Jun 16 23:09:54 BST 2010
On 17 June 2010 10:00, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> The whole thing creates a single creative work.
> The term "single creative work" is not used in the CC license text.
Displaying OSM content and other content side-by-side does not form a "work
> derived from OpenStreetMap" according to community consensus.
Sorry if I've neglected to look into this issue in more detail. May I ask,
which community consensus are you referring to? OSM or CC? My understanding
was the intention behind a share-alike clause is to compel people using the
work to release their works under similar licences. If the OSM community
doesn't really care about forcing licencing on others, then I actually think
we have reached the same conclusion. See my notes in the last paragraph.
> You need to do more than just display them side by side if you wanted to
> trigger the share-alike clause. (Compare: Just because a music CD contains
> one track licensed CC-BY-SA, this doesn't mean the whole CD has to be, even
> if the CC-BY-SA licensed track has been selected to match the theme. The
> whole has not been "built upon" the part.)
I don't think this is the correct analogy to draw. I feel that a result of a
search query is more like a single track on a CD. Elements within the result
query (or the track) can be divided further, but the whole result/track is a
single work. If you include another artist's work inside that track, I
assume that would trigger the share-alike clause.
The real thrust of my argument was that if widespread adoption of OSM &
attributation is the goal of the community, then OSM should reduce its
licencing requirements. Shifting to CC-BY would align more strongly with the
comments I've seen in this thread.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk