[OSM-legal-talk] OSM layer into Adobe Illustrator?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Rob Myers wrote:

> You can make a non-GPL map with Inkscape because the map is not a
> derivative of Inkscape's source code. If you released a derivative of
> Inkscape's source code, it would certainly have to be GPL-ed.
>
> If the map was licensed BY-SA and you released a derivative work of it
> then you would have to BY-SA the result. This is because you have  
> made a derivative of it.
>
> It is conceptually impossible to draw a map with OSM data in the same
> sense that you draw a map with Inkscape. The former is illustration of
> information or fact, the latter is use of a tool or machine.
>
> So the example of drawing a map using Inkscape is not instructive.

I think it is, but then you knew that. :)

I do know how the legal stuff you describe above works. Let's take  
that as a given and talk a little more abstractly for a minute (at the  
risk of offending Lars again!).

A map is not just geodata. A (good) map is a piece of art that uses  
geodata as source material. If I draw a map of the Leeds & Liverpool  
Canal using open geodata, and someone else draws a map using the same  
data, the two maps will likely be very different. Conversely, if next  
month I draw a map of the River Trent, it'll probably look similar to  
the L&L map although the geodata is completely different.

So a distinction can be drawn between the "artistic" and "geodata"  
parts of a map, even though CC-SA doesn't recognise such a distinction.

>> You can't use CC-SA data to produce your own copyrighted works.
>
> SA is a copyright license. You create a derivative work that you hold joint
> copyright on then relicense that as SA in "payment" for the right to
> create the derivative. So you do create a "copyright work" by the very act of
> making an SA work. What you do not do is create a proprietary work. That is,
> you cannot prevent others from doing what you have in order to disadvantage
> them.

Happy to use "proprietary" in this context if that's the word you prefer.

I do however disagree with the interpretation in your final sentence.  
As Steve posted in his summary e-mail, this is the age-old GPL/BSD  
debate - it's possibly better to avoid statements like "in order to  
disadvantage them" which could be viewed emotively.

>> If you draw a map with OSM data, which is also copyleft, your whole map is
>> required to be copyleft.
>
> Assuming that OSM data can be copylefted.
>
> But since anyone else can regenerate the map using OSM's own tools,
> there is no commercial advantage to making your map proprietary.

Anyone can generate their own map if they're a cartographer of  
sufficient skill, and that's great. The commercial advantage is purely  
in the cartography.

I believe artisan cartographers should be able to use OSM data without  
the _cartography_ part of the resulting map being copylefted, and  
that's the one thing I've always argued for and will continue to argue  
for in OSM. I will compromise and give way on absolutely everything  
else!

> Allowing people to make data proprietary will not result in more data being
> provided to the project. That has been disproven by the history of the BSD
> license.

I'm not arguing here for people to be allowed to make data proprietary.

cheers
Richard