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

[Jonathan Harley]

On 03/02/11 14:23, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley<jon at spiffymap.net>  wrote:
>> On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harley<jon at spiffymap.net>    wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better
>> expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the
>> ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it.
> Whose intent are we talking about, here?

The OSMF, I suppose, since they're driving the change.

>    The intent of some may have
> been to use CC-BY-SA as though it were not a copyleft license (*), but
> I seriously doubt that was the intention of most of us.
>
> (*) To wit, Cloudmade seems to use it that way.
>

I assume you're referring to the fact that Cloudmade's tiles are not 
released as CC-BY-SA but "Copyright Cloudmade", which I take as evidence 
that simply rendering OSM's data is not considered altering, 
transforming, or building upon OSM.

>>>    The
>>> license doesn't even mention "data", and attribution is not enough.
>> OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests
>> specifically mentions "Map data".
> Again, who wrote the license attribution request?  Not me.  In fact,
> I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking
> about.  If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be
> incorrect.  The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data.
>

http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright - if you think it's incorrect, 
you should probably take that up with the OSMF, which is the publisher 
of www.openstreetmap.org (so one can assume that the website represents 
the OSMF's view).

>> Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1
>> legal professional.
> Depends who the amateurs are.  The interpretation of a single legal
> professional is fairly worthless, unless you've paid that legal
> professional for advice.

Absolutely. No doubt Cloudmade have done so, and Peter has said that he 
will do at some stage. If I ever want to publish non-PD data on top of 
an OSM map I will certainly do that too.


Jonathan.

-- 
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