[OSM-legal-talk] Share alike

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:
> There's a disconnect in your argument.

No, there isn't, because:

> Your evenings of effort and your knowledge, skill and personal 
> judgement are not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing and are irrelevant.  
> The end product of all that effort is the thing that is relevant. That 
> end product benefits from one of it's inputs (OSM content) and the 
> rules for using that is that you should share alike and provide 
> attribution.  

is not consistently true.

The end product of generalisation, label placement etc. (a result of
knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in an Illustrator map is subject to
CC-BY-SA licensing.

The end product of designing an attractive set of styles (a result of
knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in an Illustrator map is subject to
CC-BY-SA licensing.

The end product of designing an attractive set of styles (a result of
knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in a dynamically rendered Flash map
is not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing.

Therefore:

If the Illustrator map is published, the attractive set of styles (a result
of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) can be trivially
reverse-engineered and distributed under CC-BY-SA.

If the dynamic Flash map is published, the attractive set of styles (a
result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) can be even more
trivially reverse-engineered, but cannot be distributed under CC-BY-SA.

In other words: CC-BY-SA, when applied to OSM, is entirely arbitrary (and I
would contend unfair) in defining what "knowledge, skill and personal
judgement" falls under the share-alike clause.

Why do you think I started Potlatch 2 by writing a dynamic Flash rendering
engine?

Richard


-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751761.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.