[Osmf-talk] Share Alike images
matt at asklater.com
Mon Dec 7 02:17:34 UTC 2009
Erik Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Matt Amos <matt at asklater.com> wrote:
>> Erik Johansson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>>>> Erik Johansson wrote:
>>>>> Anything that was CC-By-SA is always share alike, the ODBL leaves that
>>>>> SA philosophy altogether.
>>>> No, not leaves it altogether - reduces it to data.
>>> Being able to remix is the spirit of CC-by-SA, so this is a huge
>>> change for me. So It seems no one has a good argument for removing
>>> Share Alike from the license.
>> you're referring to share-alike on the images? the proposal isn't suggesting
>> removing share-alike on the data, it's suggesting adding it.
>> i've already stated my argument for removing share-alike requirements on the
>> creative output of other people. you clearly don't think it is "good". ;-)
> Rendering a map is about a creative as mapping a village, so no I see
> no value added by combining a stylesheet with "geodata". The product
> of that process is probably always copyrightable even though there is
> no creative process in it.
mapping a village is a matter of recording the accurate positions of
features and, while it certainly requires skill and intelligence, it
doesn't require creativity (or we wouldn't be hearing lawyers saying our
license doesn't work).
combining a stylesheet with geodata, as you say, requires no creativity.
in many cases it's as simple as running a program, which RichardF
already demonstrated isn't a creative activity.
*creating* a stylesheet is a very creative process, requiring judgement
and skill to balance the colours, line styles, iconography and
typography over various scales. have a go at it, it's harder than it
> Without the work of all contributors there wouldn't be any map, and if
> you don't value that enough to license a rendering of my map in a way
> that I can use it then you are a leech, and I don't see why I should
> let you use my map.
that's part of the question we're asking in the survey. personally, i'm
happy to let people do what they like with their own creative output
(providing they attribute OSM), but i understand that your view is
let's say i spend a huge amount of time creating a new font, a new icon
set and a style which pulls them all together in harmony. you're saying
that if i want to use OSM data then i have to give all of those things
away, since they're part of the rendering?
i did spend a while creating an icon set and i put it in the public
domain because i felt that was the best thing to do, but i would defend
other people's choice not to.
>> what is important to me is that the geodata itself remain
>> usable, open and free.
> That is important, sadly many people are not bothered by their data
> being entered into closed databases.
maybe they're only concerned about getting the rendered map? google map
maker, for example, is a "free" map (free of cost), but you don't get
access to the data.
>>> it has always been about the creativity in
>>> creating a map and the biggest product of this is the rendered map.
>> that's your point of view, but i've always felt that the data is far more
>> important than the map for two reasons; i can recreate the map from the
>> data, and a lot of effort goes into creating a really good map which i think
>> should be rewarded.
> The data is completely useless without a rendered map, unless you are
> an anal retentive packrat, and it's ok I like collecting data as much
> as I like making maps. But when I actually have to use them it's good
> to know that people will share their progress in using your anal
> retentiveness so that it's actually useful.
i think the new nominatim geocoder is very useful, and it doesn't use a
rendered map. the various OSM routing applications, garmin and navit
downloads don't use a rendered map and they're very useful. i'm sure the
mapnik, t at h and other OSM cartographers will continue to provide their
tiles under a usable license, not because they have to but because they
> I know very few people that can recreate the map, you and Frederik
> might both be able but very few people can.
i'm not sure i understand your point. you've said that the data being
free and open is important, but that it's useless without a rendered
map. you've said that creating a rendered map isn't a creative activity,
but that very few people can do it.
i think that the number of sites out there rendering OSM data shows that
many people can do it, and the range of their cartography shows the
creativity and skill they're employing to do it, for example many of the
sites listed here
More information about the osmf-talk