[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Anthony]

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Emilie Laffray <emilie.laffray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 20:52, andrzej zaborowski <balrogg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to
>> databases more than 2.0.  It explicitly applies to things like maps
>> however (possibly this only means maps as images though)
>
> It is my understanding that they are talking about maps as images but IANAL.

I'm not even sure what maps as images means.  If a map is described in
XML (say, as an svg file), would that file be a "map as an image"?
Let's assume any of the individually copyrightable graphics (like
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ef/Aeroway-helipad.png and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/c/cd/Bierkrug32x32.png) were
omitted or placed in a different file.  Just the lines
(dashed/dotted/etc), the filled areas (colors or patterns), and the
text were included.

Is OSM a project to make maps, or a project to collect factual data
about the world?