[Osmf-talk] Regarding tile licensing

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 19 June 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> 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.

But CC-BY as i see it contains no obligation to share Adapted Material,
it only contains requirements *if* you publish Adapted Material.
Therefore - if i adopt your interpretation for the moment - it is my
free choice to only share the final map rendering (the produced work in
ODbL terms) and not the semantic data extracted from the original CC-BY
material enhanced by my own work (the derivative database).  In this
point CC-BY definitely is fundamentally different with the ODbL in
terms of sharing requirements.

> 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 ODbL is not as explicit as the GPL for example about what form the
data needs to be shared in but it is clear that making it available in
a produced work form is not sufficient.

Regarding your interpretation of the CC-BY to have very wide share-alike
implications in general - no matter if this interpretation is
ultimately correct or not my recommendation to the board would be if
you want to depend on share-alike provisions in the tile license to
protect OSM data from abuse i would strongly recommend not to choose
CC-BY and trust that it does so because - as Simon agrees - this is not
typically assumed to be the case by users of CC-BY works:

> With CC BY it is "ah we just need to provide attribution and
> everything is OK", even though they've probably have never actually
> read it and don't have the foggiest idea what it really says.

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