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

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
>
> On 2 February 2011 19:05, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote:
>> Frederik has explained how it can be argued that BY-SA's private use
>> exception allows online mash-ups. Printed versions of the same works would
>> be distributed/publicly exhibited and so cannot be made under the same
>> exception.
>>
>> (IANAL, TINLA)
>
> Indeed, I don't believe that there are any lawyers in the house! I do wish
> that the Foundation would pay for one from time to time to help with general
> questions like this which matter a lot to potential users of our lovely
> mapping.
>
> 10 non-lawyers are not the same as one lawyer. I will bounce this question
> of our lawyer at some point in the future and let people know at that point,
> until then I would encourage people to create combined works.

Francis Davey, who has piped up in this thread and is a lawyer, can
provide his opinion when he has time. It would also be good if you can
also consult with your lawyer and share his opinion here as well.

For the record, I also think that Frederik's view is correct. That's
how I understand how "derivative works" operate from working with
images and illustrations in Wikipedia, and this OSM interpretation
just strengthens that idea.

This is one of the two main reasons why I was convinced that CC-BY-SA
a poor choice of license for the OSM database (and why ODbL is
better): CC forces derivative map images to be CC-BY-SA as well as any
inseparable mash-ups of those map images. (The second reason is that
you don't have up-front access to the raw data used to make the
derivative map images, which I consider more valuable than the image
itself in the context of OSM.)