[OSM-talk] OSM layer into Adobe Illustrator?

[80n]

On 2/26/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> > As SteveC observed at a talk a while back, open _data_ is pretty much
> > a new category. There are very, very few licences that address its
> > particular issues in any way - and of those that do exist, none that
> > (AFAIK) have gained any widespread traction.
>
> Good point. Currently what I think is the biggest issue is that there
> no clear idea of what a "derived work" is when it's just data. Is any
> data derived from the OSM data derived work? If someone uses OSM to do
> street name to lon/lat conversions, is the resulting datum also
> CC-BY-SA? What does that mean anyway?
>
> > Of course, the elephant in the room, which most of us are blissfully
> > ignoring, is whether _any_ licences are valid for geodata in some of
> > the principal jurisdictions in which we operate. The more case law I
> > read, the more I'm coming to see what people mean by "facts can't be
> > copyrighted".
>
> The knife cuts both ways. If it's turns out that geodata isn't
> copyrightable then we can use the data from others without worrying
> about the licence.

I'm not sure it does in practice.  While we might get legal advice
that says that it is ok for others to derive data from our maps
without violating our license, that does not stop other organisations
from taking a different view of the law with respect to their data.

Whatever opinion a lawer might give us does not affect the position
currently held by Ordanance Survey, that transcribing and digitising
data from their maps is in violation of their license.  See this
document for an actual and recent example of this:
http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/articles/os_20070223.pdf (Page 10).

The knife does not cut both ways unless we can afford an army of
lawyers to defend our position if we try to derive data from current
Ordnance Survey maps.

80n