[OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Sun Apr 17 11:08:18 BST 2011


On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:55 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa,

The definition of a derivative work is pretty clear.  "... a work
based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works,
..., or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed,
or adapted,..."

Modifying content that has been downloaded from OSM is a
transformation based upon the Work and (presumably) other pre-existing
works (such as tracklogs or imagery).

The test of this would be to try using JOSM to contribute without
doing a download first.  You will not get a good outcome.


> especially since the assumption is a derivative is required by the
> user to generate any changes made when the source of their changes
> would matter just as much.
>
> For example if they are using GPS data all they would use existing
> data for is to work out what doesn't need to be done.
>
> Same would go for the Canadian mass import currently occurring,same
> goes for other data imports such as OS.
>
> The only time it would matter is for things like extrapolation the
> position of streets based on the location of existing streets.

Yes, it's editing of *existing* content that is the breach, not the
contribution of pure new content in a previously mapped area or when
an import is performed without reference to existing content.

>
> IANAL etc
>
> On 4/17/11, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor
>> terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach
>> of the CC-BY-SA license.
>>
>> Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work.  If that
>> content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this
>> creates a derived work.
>>
>> If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so
>> under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA.
>> That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA.  But anyone
>> who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can
>> contribute this content under a different license.
>>
>> Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such
>> content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works
>> is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received*
>> that content.
>>
>> If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be
>> breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>



More information about the legal-talk mailing list