[OSM-legal-talk] selling map images

[Dair Grant]

rob at robmyers.org wrote:

>If the re-encoded format counts as "technological protection 
>measures"  then you are breaking the licence by distributing 
>the blobs.

It would be re-encoded primarily for compression/indexing, but 
the format is undocumented (does that count as "protection", who knows).


>The rendered images from OSM data are original works that are 
>created  from OSM's work so they are a very good example of derivation.

I would understand "OSM data" to be a list of coordinates and 
key=value pairs. As such any raster image created from OSM data, 
in any medium, will be an original work and hence derived (you 
could argue the same applies to vector images too, since at some 
point they stop being coordinates and start being a 
visualisation of those values).

Viewing those images as tiles in an app won't make that app 
derived (any more than viewing them in a slippy map on a web 
page would make the rest of the page derived), but what happens 
if those tiles are never directly accessible?

Since they're derived I think there is a requirement to make 
them extractable, even though you could satisfy this requirement 
just by exporting a bunch of arbitrarily named .pngs into a directory.


IMO this is the problem with the CC-by-SA model for geodata; 
forcing access to what people do with OSM data isn't that 
productive, since gaining such access does not improve the OSM data.

Requiring T-shirts to be licenced under CC-by-SA doesn't help 
OSM improve the data used to create the image on the shirt, and 
I think that's more important.

If you fixed an incorrect road name in the process, that fix is 
what the licence should be trying to pull back in - not the raw 
.pdf that's sent to the T-shirt printers (which could in theory 
be used to obtain and apply the fix, but in practice never would be).


-dair
___________________________________________________
dair at refnum.com    http://www.deathvalleycycle.com/