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

[Ed Avis]

Anthony <osm at ...> writes:

>>>So a license from, say, MapQuest,
>>>granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
>>>MapQuest's copyright,

>>...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
>>map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data,

>Well, depends on what you mean by that.  MapQuest certainly can
>(physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the
>bottom of the screen saying "this map tile is released under
>CC-BY-SA".

Right, and I could photocopy today's Financial Times and put the same notice
on it, but that's not what I mean by 'can' or 'cannot'.

>And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing
>so.  Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably
>irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing
>so.  Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that
>the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against
>copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing
>(etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA.
>
>On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA,
>if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL.

Right.  (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here
disagree with.)

>You are merging two separate events into one when you talk about
>"distributing a recording under CC-BY", distributing a recording, and
>licensing the recording under CC-BY.  The ODbL explicitly allows the
>former.  But it is actually silent about the latter.  (It says that
>you can't sublicense "the score" under CC-BY, but it says nothing
>about whether or not you can license "the recording" under CC-BY.)

Ah - so although you are authorized to distribute produced works, those who
receive them may not be authorized to distribute them further.  This may be
the crux of the issue.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>