[Osmf-talk] Share Alike images

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Mon Dec 7 17:05:58 UTC 2009

On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:39 AM, 80n wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Matt Amos <matt at asklater.com> wrote:
> 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>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> looks ;-)
> So you don't even want to license *creative* works under CC BY-SA?  Makes your argument that OSM shouldn't use CC BY-SA because it's broken for data, a bit thin.  You're really opposed to anything free except the poor suckers who contribute.  They get nothing back.
> How the hell did OSMF let someone with views like yours onto the LWG in the first place?  You really don't represent the views of the community.

And you do, or something? You're the one advocating a fork.

Yours &c.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list