[OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?

Albertas Agejevas alga at pov.lt
Thu Jun 3 12:13:08 BST 2010

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 01:25:50AM +0100, Phil Monger wrote:
> -Work out a 10 mile cycle trip or walk around your town / city, taking
> advantage of sights you want to see, streets you know are good for it, ect.
> Cycle it once or twice, getting distracted and taking twice as long as
> needed to take photographs on the way round.
> - Write a concise, *accurate* and thorough description of the route,
> directions and distances.
> - Do not refer to a map for part 2.
> As soon as you use OSM for any of what's in point 2 then your work is
> dependent on OSM, and therefore derivative, for all the same reasons we
> can't check the spelling of a street on Google maps, they can't lift street
> names, turns and distances from OSM. Since they don't credit anyone else for
> this data verification they must have checked it all against OSM.

This is silly.  When planning routes, checking distances, etc. it's
normal for a person to use a map, and it's not sensible to claim that
the copyright of the map extends to the route planned using it.  Can I
not publish my travel itinerary if I looked at a copyrighted map to
plan it

Claiming that the copyright extends this far is a very hardline
pro-copyright position in the IP policy debate, and, in my opinion,
detrimental to the public good.  Copyright is already too far-reaching
and serves mostly interests of corporate copyright holders rather than
individual creators.  See L. Lessig's Free Culture if you're not

I think this guide is exactly what OSM was meant for.  People who need
to add maps to something can have them and use them.  The maps on the
book's pages are definitely CC, the routes on the maps, arguably, are
also, but that's it.  Someone could take the maps though, and create
their own guide with exactly the same routes, but their own


More information about the legal-talk mailing list