[OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

OJ W wrote:
> Exactly, so the ODbL has a political choice to license OSM map images
> as PD (that can trivially be made uncopiable) 

I think your introduction of PD into this discussion is entirely 
unnecessary.

If you make a Produced Work from an ODbL licensed database, then you can 
immediately make this Produced Work uncopiable (e.g. you can make a 
giant art installation from it an charge anyone who dares to photograph 
it, or you can print it into a book which is (c) yourself).

PD doesn't come into the equation.

 > where previously we
> guaranteed that all map images would be freely copiable.

CC-BY-SA guaranteed that all map images would be freely copiable (for 
certain definitions of free, e.g. they could not be combined with NC or 
GFDL data etc.), but OSM is not aiming at a world of freely copiable map 
*images*.

Map images are like compiled code. They are worth very little without 
the source. ODbL acknowledges that, and shifts our focus towards the 
source. Which makes sense to me. For me, the creation of "binaries", of 
map images, happens at the fringes of OSM; they are snapshots with 
little value especially as soon as they're a day old or two.

 > Whether this
> is "essential" hasn't been explained

It has been explained in the half sentence following my use of the word 
"essential":

(Fred)
 > This is essential if we want to give users the chance to combine OSM
 > material with other, more restrictively licensed material, into images
 > or other products.

(OJW)
> it certainly isn't essential to
> the creation of free maps.

Unless the "free map" in question is one that combines free 
"non-commercial" altitude data with free OpenStreetMap roads; this is 
not possible with CC-BY-SA and will be possible with ODbL. If that's not 
"essential" then I don't know what is.

Bye
Frederik