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

[Anthony]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harley <jon at spiffymap.net> wrote:
> 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'm not sure where you're getting that "interpretation" from.  The
license doesn't even mention "data", and attribution is not enough.
The license is CC-BY-SA, not CC-BY.  Perhaps this is where you got
confused?  I see you mentioned CC-BY earlier.  I thought it was a
typo, though.

> 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.

It does make sense.  And it's pretty simple, really.  "If you alter,
transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting
work only under the same or similar license to this one."