[OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Tim Waters (chippy) escribió:
> You would be required to release the data, even if you didn't want to.

Not really. Doing so would make the license fail two of the DFSG tests, and I 
think that would be a Very Bad Thing(tm).

First, have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFSG#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance


Now, let's take the "dissident test".

Let's suppose that OSM data is used as a base for a paper map of a contested 
territory, by military force A: military A's HQ will import OSM data into 
their GIS, and upload it to their infantry squads' field GPS.

Military A has to include a notice in their paper maps, and their GPSs that 
A's maps are made from OSM data - and if a sergeant of A's army requires the 
source data used in its GPS, A's has to give this sergeant access to the 
source data.

---IMPORTANT---
Now, the ODbL, in order to be a truly copyleft (or DFSG-compliant) license, 
does NOT have to make army A give its map data to rival military force B.
---IMPORTANT---

A is not giving any paper maps to B, so B doesn't have to have access to the 
raw data.

Also, if B's spy would steal a paper map, this spy wouldn't have any rights to 
A's source data: A's paper maps are copyrighted.






Again, copyleft (or "share-alike") licenses do not require the licensed party 
to distribute the modifications: it requires the licensed party to keep the 
license intact **if** it distributes the data.

-- 
----------------------------------
Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>

El DIODO: Lo que ocurre a gente que no muere jóven.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20081008/53663290/attachment.pgp>