[OSM-legal-talk] When does a produced work has to be share-alike?

[Lars-Daniel Weber]

Hi.

ODbL don't want produced works to be share-alike, but wants the underlying database to be.
So what's the deal when I'm strictly separating ODbL licensed data from data under another license?

In Illustrator, I could load a SVG created by qGIS with OSM data. I could only *link* to this SVG only without embedding it. So it's in a complete seperate file / XML DB, which can't or doesn't have to be edited. Now I could add other layers with my own streets or even with data under a properity license. When storing the new file, the OSM-data doesn't get changed anymore.

Sure, I have to release the SVG file or the workflow under share-alike, that's fine so far. But when I press "export to PDF", will this be an intermidiate database, which also has to be share-alike? This simply wouldn't be possible pecause of the use of non-free data. In my eyes, the only solution could be to find a printers' shop, which directly printers from Illustrator to T-Shirts... But why does ODbL do this to users of the data?

I think, ODbL harms the actual use of its data with other datasources. Nearly all commercial spatial data under a properity license allows you to mix the data when you give the right credits (f.e. "rivers: (C) A. Corp, streets: (C) B. Corp). ODbL forces you to release your data mashed-up. That's way too strict and doesn't have to do anything with being "open", but with being "free".

I hope, anyone is still active in this mailing-list...

Best regards,
Lars-Daniel