[OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call forcomments

[Peter Miller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
> Sent: 15 October 2008 12:20
> To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call
> forcomments
> 
> Peter Miller wrote:
> 
> > Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:
> >
> >> For example, I'm not sure but I think that  "Publishing a simple map
> >> in a book, newsletter" would require a not-so-simple requirement to
> >> make the data they used available, somehow...
> >
> > I agree. Would you like to propose the wording? (and anyone else for
> that
> > matter). In the case of the map in the newsletter there should possibly
> be
> > two different use cases not one. One where standard OSM data is being
> used,
> > and another where a Derivative Database is used containing additional or
> > changed data. In the first case nothing no DB needs to be published, in
> the
> > second it does. Possibly the first use case is a map of a village as
> > currently in the OSM DB, for the second it is the village with a
> proposed
> > Bypass included and some minor roads diverted etc. This would need to be
> > described in a fork of the DB and then either a differential DB would
> need
> > to be published, or a copy of the full dataset for the fork along with
> the
> > map in the newsletter.
> 
> This is all reasonably well-established territory. Two general principles.
> 
> Firstly, the burden is on the person producing the book (in ODBL
> language, the "integrated experience") to make the data available.
> That's a significant change, and improvement, from CC-BY-SA where the
> burden was on OSM if it wanted to reintegrate the data. So, to some
> extent, "a not-so-simple requirement" is not our problem.
> 
> Secondly, the key words are things like "machine readable". There is
> no requirement to rewrite it in any particular format, so - from the
> point-of-view of the book publisher - this gets it back from
> "not-so-simple" to "simple".
> 
> As an example, I've already published maps in a book which combine OSM
> and other (public domain) data. Under ODBL, I would need to have
> supplied the source code - in this case, the raw Illustrator files, as
> no GIS was used - on request. I'd probably take about two minutes to
> strip out the non-database elements from the file (the cartographic
> styling) before supplying them.
> 

I am basing my response of the Brief, not the current draft of ODBL (they
are not that different except in the definition of a Derivative DB), however
it would be my understanding that if you combined the OSM DB (unaltered)
with another data-source (the PD one you refer to) then you don't need to
publish the Derivative DB (because there isn't one) and you don't need to
publish the Collective DB (because you don't need to do that). In that case
all you need to do is make a suitable acknowledgement for the OSM Data (and
any other separate data sources).

Does that make sense?


Peter
 
> The revised ODBL, as ever, gets it just right. You might even get the
> impression that the licence was drawn up with OSM in mind and revised
> with the help of some active OSM contributors. ;)
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk