[OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] New version of US redaction map

[Paul Norman]

You’d be mixing an ODbL database (new OSM) with a CC BY-SA database (old OSM). You’d have to publish the database as ODbL if you were distributing the resulting tiles.

 

If you didn’t publish the work and just used it yourself you’d likely be fine, but a layer you can’t distribute isn’t really worth it.

 

From: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m at rtijn.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:56 PM
To: Mike N
Cc: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] New version of US redaction map

 

Hi

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Mike N <niceman at att.net> wrote:

On 8/13/2012 11:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

It’s all CC BY-SA right now so you’d be okay now, but I think it’d be a
problem in the future under both CC BY-SA and ODbL if you were mix the
data in this way.

 

  I'd think this is not actually importing any information directly from the redacted copyrighted CC BY-SA data: it's just using it to set or clear a flag.

  Much as if you were heading out to do a survey, printed Google navigation directions, and found that the Google directions are wrong when you get there - you'd conclude "Mismatch", but still rely only on survey and approved sources to create OSM data.

 

 

I would still be using data that is not ODbL licensed together with data that is ODbL licensed to create the layer. How that layer is being used by mappers to focus their remapping efforts is not in question here I think - the data is not directly used to create new OSM data. Anyway, I should probably ask over at legal-talk.

 

Martijn

 

-- 
martijn van exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20120814/c1c25f3e/attachment.html>