[Osmf-talk] CC BY SA 2.0 and backup plan

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 19:34:17 UTC 2009


On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Matt Amos <matt at asklater.com> wrote:

> 80n wrote:
>
>  On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Matt Amos <matt at asklater.com <mailto:
>> matt at asklater.com>> wrote:
>>    you probably *can* publish a map based on a collective database of
>>    CC BY-SA data and ODbL data, and the produced work will be CC BY-SA
>>    licensed.
>>
>>    i think you *can* publish a map based on a collective database of CC
>>    BY-SA data and a derivative of ODbL data, and the produced work will
>>    be CC BY-SA licensed and the whole dump, or diff, of the derivative
>>    ODbL data must be available.
>>
>>    i think you *can* publish a map based on a collective database of CC
>>    BY-SA derivative data and a derivative of ODbL data as long as the
>>    derivative doesn't "represent, in terms of obtaining, verification
>>    or presentation, significant investment", and the produced work is
>>    CC BY-SA, and the diff/dump of the ODbL data is made available.
>>
>> I'm still thinking this through but how would you create the ODbL
>> derivative database?  You'd have to do it without any recourse to the CC
>> BY-SA data and I don't see how that would be possible.
>>
>
> the clearest example is if you create it with no recourse to the CC BY-SA
> data. for example, if you run osm2pgsql to create the two independent
> databases, you can generate (CC BY-SA) tiles from mapnik and distribute
> them. i don't see any license conflict here.
>
> So how does mapnik combine the two datasets?  In memory.  I don't think the
definition of a database requires that it be resident on a physical disk.
Mapnik has to either derive something from the CC-BY-SA data or something
from the ODbL data, it can't use magic.



> a less clear example is if the modification doesn't "represent, in terms of
> obtaining, verification or presentation, significant investment". for
> example, if i have two apidb format databases and take the list of elements
> in the ODbL database and delete them from the CC BY-SA database then (it's
> my understanding that) i can still render CC BY-SA tiles from the resulting
> collective database. and, since CC BY-SA doesn't require that i release the
> database, i don't have anything else to release.
>
> it gets even murkier if i do it the other way around, but if the list of
> elements in the CC BY-SA database doesn't "represent ... significant
> investment" then i think it's likely i can delete them from the ODbL
> database and only release that list. again, the tiles produced from the
> resulting collective database would be CC BY-SA.
>
> The "significant investment" argument is very thin.  Any judge would
immediately see that both datasets represent significant investment.  You
would not just be dealing with simple isolated facts, but rather using the
whole of the information in the dataset.

Whatever technical mechanism you try to use, the net result will be a
derivative of both datasets.  That's using information that represents a
"significant investment" however you look at it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091205/765beee6/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list