[OSM-legal-talk] Appropriate License For Supplemental Data

Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es
Wed Sep 3 20:18:26 BST 2008

El Miércoles, 3 de Septiembre de 2008, Sunburned Surveyor escribió:
> Does anyone see a problem with releasing this information under the
> same license as the OSM vector data? What about using a different
> Creative Commons License? Would this create a conflict?

Please have a look at:

(If the link fails, that's section 2.15 in the CC FAQ)

In other words, if you want that data to be used in OSM with no issues, you 
should license it with a PD, CC-by, or CC-by-sa license.

Also, keep in mind that releasing anything under any license doesn't mean that 
you lose the rights to it, particularly the rights to re-license it. For 
example, if you release some data under CC-by-sa, you can then sell that same 
data, and you can then publish it under PD. That's called "dual licensing", 
and it's the tool that artists who publish under CC-by-nc use for selling 
their works and making money.

I say this because a new license, the Open Database License (ODbL) is in the 
works, and OSM will eventually adopt it for the vector data, AFAIK. It means 
that you might have to re-license the supplemental data under a license 
compatible with the details of the ODbL, which may not be a CC-by-sa.

Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>

Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.26-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.9, and PHP 
5.2.6-2+b1 generating this signature.
Uptime: 21:08:51 up 13 days,  9:04,  2 users,  load average: 0.31, 0.22, 0.25
-------------- 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/20080903/360e9476/attachment.pgp>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list