[OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Jonathan Harley]

On 02/02/11 18:00, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harley<jon at spiffymap.net>  wrote:
>> On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>> Jonathan Harley wrote:
>>>> Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the
>>>> sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database,
>>>> in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work
>>>> based on a database, ever.
>>> For print, yes, that's about the size of it.
>> I don't see what print's got to do with it.
> Me neither.  I don't agree with using javascript and layers to try to
> subvert the intent of the license.  I think Frederick is wrong when he
> says "If the layers are separable
> then you can have different licenses on each".

I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the 
license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the 
map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data 
is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent 
people from creating works in which not all elements are free.

I intended my comments to be limited to the wording of the current 
license as linked to by openstreetmap.org, and my interpretation is 
guided by the idea that the current license must be intended to make sense.

> Did you read my earlier explanation?  The rendered map is released
> under CC-BY-SA, and then *that* can be part of a collective work.
>
> Alternatively, the database, as it exists on disk, is a collective
> work with the other files on disk being other works which are part of
> the collection.
>
> There's no bar against collective works.

I think we agree about that.

J.


-- 
Jonathan Harley    :     Managing Director     :     SpiffyMap Ltd

Email: md at spiffymap.com   Phone: 0845 313 8457   www.spiffymap.com
Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ