[Osmf-talk] License with or without virus
osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Wed Dec 9 14:31:19 UTC 2009
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:53 AM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
>> Oliver White wrote:
>> > e.g. in this case it means that you couldn't upload the segment of ITN
>> > news containing your Baghdad map to YouTube and make it a featured
>> > image.
>> Happily, you could. As a report of events ("OSM used in national
>> television map"), it would qualify as 'fair dealing' (UK) or 'fair use'
>> (US) for which ODbL has an explicit exception (6.1b).
> As a produced work ODbL doesn't even come into it. It could be licensed
> under any license whatsoever.
> Unless ITN is in the business of rendering maps from the data themselves
> ODbL doesn't come into it. The issue for them would remain that the
> rendered map of Baghdad would be licensed under CC BY-SA. ODbL changes
> nothing in this scenario.
Not quite, it would be CC BY-SA attributing OpenStreetMap. On being
contacted, a foundation board member (or other appointed party) could
theoretically OK a particular use if asked, as the tiles would be only
CC BY-SA by policy, not requirement of the underlying license. That
isn't possible now due to the attribution issue -- we still don't know
who we're supposed to attribute, although by now we all seem quite
happy with OSM & Contributors, or something like it.
Going back to the original thread  there were two main issues:
1) OSM data was being imported as SVG with the intention of overlaying
google satellite imagery -- you can't do that with CC BY-SA
2) nobody knew who to attribute
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but these are both trivial under ODbL and
the answer would have been one line: "Sure, there's no problem! Your
rendered image is a produced work, just be sure to attribute the
It's true that the result would not have been Free, free, or possibly
even free as in beer (not something that I would mind).
More information about the osmf-talk