[Osmf-talk] Regarding tile licensing

[Simon Poole]

Am 18.06.2019 um 22:23 schrieb Christoph Hormann via osmf-talk:
> ...
> What you seem to be saying is that if i get a collection of map tiles 
> from osm.org (presumed CC-BY for the sake of this argument), OCR the 
> labels and detect and vectorize the buildings, fix a number of errors 
> in the names, add some missing buildings, re-render my own map from 
> them and publish that i have to allow others to use this map under 
> terms no more restrictive than CC-BY.

No that wasn't my point, but, yes CC BY could be read as requiring that
(this is not a new restriction, 4.0 just makes it textually clearer). 
Obviously there is a large number of caveats to make wrt your example,
but essentially you do need to allow users to use the Licensed Material
on CC BY terms, and my understanding, from lengthy discussions with CC,
is that that would include Adapted Material.

Most of the time these discussions tend to centre around the application
of DRM. CC is absolutely crystal clear on that aspect see
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-use-effective-technological-measures-such-as-drm-when-i-share-cc-licensed-material
That in itself already implies a certain degree of copyleft/SA, but the
actual text of 2. a. 5. b. goes substantially further:

/No downstream restrictions//. You may not offer or impose any
additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective
Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts
exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material./

In any case what I was actually pointing to was that if you obtain data
that is licensed on CC BY 4.0 terms and include it in a database in
which you have sui generis database rights, the whole database is
Adapted Material (see section 4 of CC BY 4.0) and the above applies.

> I doubt that because it would effectively defeat the whole purpose of 
> CC-BY to not be a share-alike license.  

Tell that CC.

> But even if that was the case 
> it would still not be functionally the same as the ODbL share-alike 
> requirement because CC-BY quite definitely does not require me to 
> publish intermediate data generated on the way to produce Adapted 
> Material - which the ODbL however does.

The ODbL -never- requires you to publish (as in make available to the
general public) anything, further when creating a Derivative Database it
definitely does not require intermediate stages to be made available.

The requirements of the ODbL are limited to:

- making a non-DRM version of a Derivative Database available to
recipients of the Derivative Database (if the database is not DRM
protected then this is moot),

- or alternatively providing the means to produce the Derivative
Database from the original database (note that the recipient of the
Derivative Database does not get to choose) 

The same applies to a Derivative Database that was used to create a
Produced Work that is publicly used (CC BY would be more restrictive in
this case)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190619/7b3c9299/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20190619/7b3c9299/attachment.sig>