[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] cloudmade maps copyright terms and conditions

[Matt Amos]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "If I have data derived from OSM data, do I have to distribute it? The
>>> licence does not force you to distribute or make any data available. But if
>>> you do choose to distribute it, or anything derived from it, it must be
>>> under the same licence terms as the OSM data."
>>>
>>> I read this like cloudmade could use their maps for their own purposes
>>> without redistributing it, or they have to put their maps under cc-by-sa 2.0
>>> as well. Or did I misunderstand something?
>>
>> Well...does showing a map on a website mean you are "distributing" it?
>
> That's somewhat disputed in the US.  If you're not "distributing" it,
> then you're publicly displaying it.  But most courts have said it's
> "distribution", despite the fact that people arguing for "public
> display" have a better legal argument :).
>
> CC-BY-SA doesn't seem to have any provision for public display of
> modified versions.  Which I suppose technically means you're not
> allowed to do it at all.

doesn't it?

section 4b: "You may distribute, **publicly display**, publicly
perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under
the terms of this License, ..." (emphasis mine)

i don't see what the fuss is about - cloudmade's tiles are CC BY-SA,
cloudmade's site isn't. you can redistribute a screenshot containing
only tiles under CC BY-SA. you can't distribute a screenshot of the
whole site, as that would contain non-CC BY-SA stuff. although i'm
sure if you asked nicely, cloudmade wouldn't mind.

as richardf pointed out, the legalese could be clearer. but to me it's
already clear enough.

cheers,

matt