[OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Mon Oct 7 16:38:21 UTC 2019


In my mind, the tile license (CC-BY-SA) sits on top of the database
license, as the license to a produced work by the OSMF. So if what is
extracted is solely what was in the database, then the extraction is not
material that the tile license covered (the tile license cannot actually
change the license of the data, which is ODbL, as that would be
impermissible under ODbL). This is the same principle, that if you use a
CC-BY song in a music video that is licensed as CC-BY-SA, and then someone
comes along and rips the song from the music video, the song is still
CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA.
Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of simplified
OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that you
have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is
insubstantial
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 8:08 AM Lars-Daniel Weber <Lars-Daniel.Weber at gmx.de>
wrote:

> From: "Simon Poole" <simon at poole.ch>
> > I'm not ruling out the first interpretation either and potentially both
> > licenses would have to apply in full (which isn't possible without
> > conflict).
>
> I would like to clarify once again that I really do want to attribute OSM.
> But it's damn difficult for me to find out under which license my work
> falls.
> I know lots of people, loading OSM tiles in QGIS and draw stuff on it. So
> I'm pretty confused that there aren't any guidelines discussed.
>
> > But if the shape files are simply used for display purposes as a
> > tendency I would find that they are still being used as a produced work
> > as per
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline
> > Which from the ODbL pov requires attribution and a pointer back to the
> > data source, which you can provide without being in conflict with CC
> > BY-SA terms that you would have to adhere to.
>
> No, the shapefile will be used for further geoprocessing: selection of
> POI, which are non-free, but fall into the border I've digitized upon the
> OSM background map.
>
> Would you recommend
> 1. to use another datasource as background map or
> 2. draw all borders on an OSM extract once again?
>
> Since neither the drawing, nor my digitalization uses OSM data, I'm really
> asking myself if it's not a trivial act at all?
> Wouldn't "Drawn on OSM tiles in CC-BY-SA 2.0, based on OSM data in ODbL"
> be enough as attribution?
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20191007/df859ccd/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list