[Openstreetmap] The bigger picture

[Tom Carden]

On 2/14/06, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> Quoting Tom Carden <tom at tom-carden.co.uk>:
>
> > I don't think that's what CC-SA means.  I think it means that I can
> > sell things if I want to, so long as *reuse* is permitted as it was
> > for the original dataset.  In other words, if I produce a derivative
> > of a CC-SA licensed work, I am obliged to distribute my work under
> > that same license.  Doesn't stop me selling it, it just means I have
> > to let other people produce derivatives of my work.
>
> But that's the problem, isn't it?
>

No :)

> If we produce a lovely colourful map of the UK, with motorways (from
> OSM), hill
> shading (from SRTM), built-up areas (from DCW/VMAP0) and all, we have to
> licence it under CC-SA.

Yes.

> We can sell it, true, but the first person who buys it
> will just post it up on their FTP space for free download,

That's a possibility.

> and then we're no
> further along the way of funding OSM.
>

Well, we're one sale further :)  But if we price accordingly (paying
for the printing, distribution, etc. with a kickback to OpenStreetMap
to support the creation of further open geodata sources) I think we'll
still get plenty sales.

People still buy CDs, and pay for downloads from iTunes et al, even
though p2p is easy, and copying CDs from friends (including artwork)
is easy, safe and cheap.  Sometimes people just prefer to go to the
source.

> To my mind, this is an unintended consequence of CC-SA as applied to
> OSM.

No, it's an intended consequence.  For Free geodata you absolutely
have to be able to rip/mix/burn however you like.  Set the data free
and all that.

> OSM is
> about geodata - not cartography, not websites, not books, not anywhere
> else you
> might want to place a "map". But CC's ShareAlike doesn't differentiate.
>

Um, I think it's a little bit to do with all those things, as well as
the geodata.

> I would (personally) be happier with a modified ShareAlike where the CC clause
> is replaced with something like this:
>
> "Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this geodata, you must
> release the resulting geodata under a licence identical to this one."
>

So you're just replacing 'work' in the current license* with
'geodata'?  How does that help?  (Not being sarcastic or rhetorical
there - I'm not clear on the difference).

* http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Tom.