[OSM-talk] OSM layer into Adobe Illustrator?

[Richard Fairhurst]

OJW wrote:

> Totally agree. It's the whole "popularity is everything, don't worry about
> principles" argument, that free software people have been having since
> forever.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/copyleft.html

With respect, though, it isn't wholly the same argument.

You can use GPLed software to produce your own copyrighted works. If  
you draw a map with (say) Inkscape, which is copyleft, there's nothing  
to require that your map should be copyleft.

You can't use CC-SA data to produce your own copyrighted works. If you  
draw a map with OSM data, which is also copyleft, your whole map is  
required to be copyleft.

This is why there's a school of thought that says OSM could have a  
more appropriate copyleft licence, which says:

- You may copy and distribute this geodata, or a work based on it,  
provided that you accompany it with the complete geodata source for  
the full work - or a written offer to give any third party this  
complete source.
- Apart from this, you may do what the hell you like with it.
- (Plus an attribution requirement.)

The advantages are:

- More geodata for OSM. (At present, if you combine OSM data with  
other data to make a map, you don't have to make the other data  
available – just the finished map. Since OSM would prefer to have the  
data than the finished maps, it's a bit of a hollow victory.)
- Works well in ITN-type cases.
- Attribution requirement can be used to ensure licence compatibility  
with other open/free licences.

Disadvantages:

- Still needs a decision about 'deriving points' (as per Jamie's  
npemap postings).
- Will not satisfy those who think all art should be copyleft.

As you know, I'm a pretty fervent PD advocate and would far prefer OSM  
to adopt full PD. But I can see "better copyleft" as being a realistic  
and achievable solution for us and for other open data projects.

cheers
Richard