[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/17/2010 05:43 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>
> Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least under
> some interpretations.  It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
> map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public domain
> one you can't.  (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution
> requirement is more reasonable.)

You can produce CC-licensed work from ODbL/DbCL data.

> One of the main problems with the proposed ODbL/DbCL setup is that it's pretty
> murky what is allowed and what isn't allowed; and also quite unclear whether the

It is more clear that the ODbL allows what OSM wish to allow than BY-SA 
does.

I don't personally agree with the consensus on mash-ups, but it is 
clearly realised by the ODbL.

> things that are disallowed are truly enforceable, or just magic text which has
> no real weight.  If OSM itself produced a public domain tileset, the clarity of
> the action would compensate a bit for the uncertainty of the licence; it would
> be clear for all that rendered map tiles can be distributed under any terms.

That's a reasonable point. But it would upset the copyleft proponents.

Like me. ;-)

>> Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?
>
> Quite possibly.

No, it's a derived work. The definitions in the ODbL make this 
reasonably clear.

- Rob.