[Osmf-talk] Regarding tile licensing

[Simon Poole]

Am 18.06.2019 um 19:14 schrieb Christoph Hormann via osmf-talk:
> 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.

So you are suggesting that we should license on terms that the ODbL
itself does not require. It doesn't really compute that the OSMF should
be held to a different norm in that respect than anybody else.


>
>> 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.

As said, per definition a Produced Work is not a database and doesn't
"contain data", if the work in question is a database then it is
licensed on ODbL terms (see the Produced Work guideline for our position
on this).


>
> 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.

Assuming that

a) the work in question (OSM data) is a database

b) it is published in the EU or a territory that recognizes EU data base
rights and by virtue of that those rights are mutually recognized (in
any other situation we do not need to have this argument), and we are
considering reuse and distribution in the same territories

then according to Section 4 of CC BY 4.0 any database including the work
is Adapted Material and according to 2 a. 5. B. may only be distributed
on terms that do not  "restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any
recipient of the Licensed Material."* So while CC BY 4.0 does not
specify a required licence, you cannot restrict the use of any database
that includes such data more than what CC BY 4.0 requires (aka providing
attribution). For example if you are Here and used so licensed data in
your database, you would not be able to restrict the -whole- dataset
from being used on CC BY 4.0 terms.**

Note to other readers: as you may have noticed we are suggesting to
waive 2 a. 5. B. when licensing tiles because of the effects this would
have on reuse of the tiles outside of the sophistry above.

* See 2.a.1. for the Licensed Rights

** Note CC claims that CC BY 4.0 is a suitable input licence for CC
BY-SA 4.0, this is however not supported by the licence text itself,
because obviously the sharealike provisions of CC BY-SA 4.0 are more
restrictive than those of CC BY 4.0 or else the licence wouldn't need to
exist in the first place.


> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190618/b2e0d839/attachment.sig>