[OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change

[Grant Slater]

On 16 November 2010 21:45, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
>
> I think it's pretty clear that data, if derived from the OSM data, would need
> to be distributed under the same share-alike terms.

Yes under CC-BY-SA only the product created from the data. As an open
source person I value the source code (read data) a whole lot more
than a binary blob (read: map jpeg)

>
> This is an argument in favour of the ODbL's provisions that you can make a
> 'produced work' and it doesn't have to be distributed under the same terms.
> That is in my view the one big point in favour of the ODbL.  I rather liked the
> idea that printed maps produced from OSM would have to be freely licensed, but
> this was an emotional reaction.  It would probably help the project (as well
> as certain companies) if map tiles could be redistributed without restrictions.
>

I'm part of the sysadmin team and LWG. There are no plans to restrict
OSM.org tiles now or in the future. (subject to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy )
On an adoption of ODbL the OSM tiles will most likely remain CC-BY-SA
licensed too.

> I am unhappy, though, at the claim that although these map tiles or printed maps
> need not be distributed under ODbL, it would be prohibited to trace over them
> and make your own map data from them - because this would 'regenerate the
> original database' or something like that.  So the tiles are not really
> unrestricted after all; they come with a no-reverse-engineering clause.  This is
> one of those (in my opinion) unenforceable claims which restrict ordinary people
> without a lawyer on hand, but have no real legal force.
>

Why trace from a binary blob when the modified ODbL licensed data
needs to be made available?

>>But I'm not really talking about infringements per se; I'm talking about
>>circumventing the spirit of CC-BY-SA within the letter of CC-BY-SA. The
>>"computer-generated derivative" previously discussed here and on
>>cc-community is the obvious example; you can avoid having to share if you
>>combine on the client rather than the server.
>
> That's more interesting.  Yes, you can run a program on your local computer to
> download data (or any copyrighted work, really) and make manipulations to it.
> You don't have to share the result with anyone.  In my view trying to forbid
> this is a step too far and would make the data non-free; everyone should have
> the right to make local changes, and the right to make computer programs to
> do it.  But this is truly a matter of opinion.
>

I am misunderstandin; local changes (non-distributed) on ODbL licensed
data are not restricted.

>
> Yup.  The most curious feature of the whole process is the assertion that there
> is a consensus for a share-alike licence, but somehow not for the share-alike
> licence we are successfully using; and that a public domain (or CC-BY) map
> is a practical impossibility, but that the much more complex ODbL+DbCL+CTs
> setup is workable.
>

At the moment under CC-BY-SA we have a ver fuzzy set of ideas/rules
what is and what isn't allowed. Sure ODbL+DbCL+CTs is more text, but
things are a lot clearer cut.
On distrubuting ODbL+DbCL data you only need to worry about the ODbL.
For insubstantial extracts only DbCL. For contributing data CTs, with
further reading of ODbL+DbCL if desired.

Regards
 Grant