[OSM-legal-talk] Is the "data share-alike" road navigable?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Chance wrote:

> Some people seem in favour of the following arrangement:
>
> 1. Database of GPS traces - public domain, possibly with a license   
> to get around EU database rights to achieve the same effect
>
> 2. Database of nodes, etc. - share-alike licensed
>
> 3. Maps produced from data - up to the creator (proprietary,   
> share-alike, whatever)
>
> Is this even possible? Let's get a legal opinion on the connection   
> between 2 & 3 before we let this debate rage on much longer, because  
>  several people seriously doubt that you could get away with 3,  
> since  the maps would be derivative works of the data.

Ok, let's see.

Here's a few things I'll take as givens:

- No existing licence[1] will give us the above distinction.
- Maps produced from data are indeed derivative works.
- In this putative "ideal licence" scenario, CC-SA is not necessarily a more
   relevant model for OSM than (say) the GPL.

With those in mind, can we achieve 2 and 3 above?

I think so. The key is that 3 ("maps produced from data") _can't_ be  
licensed entirely at the cartographer's whim. Instead, they have to  
retain the share-alike provision for the data.

So if I were to release a map using OSM data, the credit would go  
something like this:

    (c) 2007 Richard Fairhurst/editions Systeme D.
    Data (c) 2007 OpenStreetMap Contributors (www.openstreetmap.org).
       Released under OpenGeoData Licence (www.opengeodata.org/licence).

The clever thing is: this already happens with other, non-OSM data.

Have a look at almost any map you buy in Britain today. <randomly  
plucks GEOprojects map of the Basingstoke Canal off the shelf> You'll  
find credits like this:

    (c) GEOprojects 1995. Third edition 2005.
    Designed and produced by GEOprojects (UK) Limited.
    Reproduced from Landranger 1:50 000 and Explorer 1:25 000 by permission
      of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's
      Stationery Office. (c) Crown copyright 2003. All rights reserved.
      Licence number 100020045.

This doesn't mean that OS own the copyright in the map art. But  
they're licensing the data they provide, on their terms, and they  
retain the copyright in that data.

I suggest that we do the same, with the addition of a  
share-alike/copyleft provision. To maximise benefit to OSM, the latter  
could take the form of "you must publish the source code in  
machine-readable format", just like the GPL; and that's an improvement  
over our current licence.

Does that make some sense?

Incidentally, thank you for taking the interest and engaging with the  
argument, much appreciated. And I like the phrase "cottage  
cartographer". :)

cheers
Richard

[1] Though I've not investigated the Talis licence yet.