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

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Chance wrote:

> Me, and yes, exactly. I would always distribute my end-result maps  
> under
> share-alike because I want others to be able to build on my work,  
> and to me
> it's very arbitrary and harmful to distinguish between the nodes 
> +ways+areas
> data and the maps that get produced. Even the technical inability  
> of people
> to amend my ethical maps of Reading is frustrating from that point  
> of view.

I'd _hope_ that a well-drafted share-data licence would actually be  
better for this.

Because CC-BY-SA doesn't require you to distribute the source,  
someone who produced an ethical map of Borchester University using  
OSM data could just publish it as a raster and a print-out, making it  
hard to amend without manually tracing everything again.

A well-drafted share-data licence would require the cartographer to  
publish the data (maybe as .osm or .shp), so anyone wanting to amend  
it would have a very significant advantage over the situation now.  
And, of course, they could still publish the source for the 'art' bit  
if they wanted.

In your case I guess you'd publish the source anyway, so it's a moot  
point. But on a global level, share-data should make it easier for  
people to do what you describe with OSM-derived maps.

cheers
Richard