[Openstreetmap] Which CC Licence for Data-Sets?

Matt Amos matt at matt-amos.uklinux.net
Wed Feb 23 00:07:31 GMT 2005

On Tuesday 22 February 2005 18:38, SteveC wrote:
> * @ 22/02/05 02:57:19 PM jo at frot.org wrote:
> > - "derived work" is a very hard call for geodata.

agreed... we really need to firm up that definition. as i understand 
it - and i'm not a lawyer - anything which alters the visual 
appearance of the copyrighted work makes a derivative.

but this is difficult as the derivative maps would need SA licensing, 
but any derivative data might be exempt until rendered. which is an 
odd restriction.

> All good points. Damn. How to people feel about non-SA then?

i think an SA license would encourage companies to get involved in OSM 
and improve it, as some do with the Linux kernel, rather than just 
rip it off. 

maybe we need to think of the map equivalent of the LGPL, where 
linking (i.e: using as a base layer, perhaps) is allowed, but all 
other modifications (correcting positions, adding features, etc...) 
requires SA?



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20050223/45c0a256/attachment.pgp>

More information about the talk mailing list