[Osmf-talk] Regarding tile licensing

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 18 June 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> The issue that the licence doesn't require compliance with the ODbL
> exists with the current license, and any other common licence that I
> know of. And literally 1000s of maps produced from OSM data are
> similarly not licensed on terms that would require that.

As i tried to point out it makes a huge difference if some arbitrary
data user licenses a produced work or if the OSMF does so.

And as i see it the CC-BY-SA currently used is a safe choice because it
is stricter than the ODbL in all practical cases which ensures that a
user following the CC-BY-SA terms will not violate the ODbL.

> As per definition a ODbL Produced Work is not a database, we are
> clearly not licensing any database rights to start with in any case.

No, as said CC-BY 4.0 explicitly includes database rights and the user
of CC-BY map renderings would rightfully assume the license to apply to
the data contained in the map rendering.  If that is not the case this
needs to be stated in the license terms.

On what legal basis would you want to forbid me to reverse engineer
semantic data from CC-BY map tiles and use it under CC-BY terms in
violation of ODbL terms?

> PS: as I've pointed out before, the sui generis database clause in CC
> BY 4.0 is very sharealikeish and more restrictive than the ODbL on
> how it would affect third party databases that contain OSM data
> licensed on such terms.

Huh?  Where does CC-BY say i have to share-alike anything?  The
attribution requirement is viral, that is the whole point of CC-BY, it
applies even when you combine and dilute CC-BY data with other data.
But i don't see any share-alike requriements, i am free to share or not
to share any Adapted Material.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/