[OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Survey: How to pay the OSM bill

Chris Fleming me at chrisfleming.org
Thu Jul 12 22:25:42 BST 2007

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
>> From a recent discussion on the cc-licenses list regarding the use of
>> photographs as illustrations I believe that using maps as an
>> illustration wouldn't require the rest of the book to be licenced  
>> BY-SA.
>> This is because the book isn't a derivative of the map.
> I agree. It's a collective work.
I'm not sure, it probably depends on the actual book, if the words + 
maps make sense independently then it's a collective work, however if 
the two things are linked and don't make sense on their own it's more 
likely to be a derived work?
>> (For those of you who are familiar with Free Software licences; BY-SA
>> works more like the LGPL than the GPL.)
> I do disagree with you here, though.
> The LGPL is pretty clever because it enforces a separation between  
> two domains: the "application", and the "library" which the  
> application makes use of.
> CC-SA, in an OSM context, doesn't enforce any separation between the  
> "map", and the "data" which the map makes use of. Consequently if you  
> use OSM data, all of your map has to be shared-alike - not just the  
> data.
> Actually the GPL is a fair comparison with CC-SA. CC-SA has the  
> concept of a collective work. So, to be fair, does the GPL. That's  
> because the GPL is a software licence, and the equivalent of a  
> collective work is "different files on the same filesystem". The GPL  
> doesn't insist that, because you have one GPLed program, all software  
> on your hard disc has to be GPLed; similarly, CC-SA doesn't insist  
> that, because one page of your book is a CC-SA map, every other page  
> has to be CC-SAed.
> The main difference is that the GPL (and LGPL) require you to publish  
> the source, and CC-SA doesn't. But for our purposes as agitators for  
> free geodata, a "publish the source" requirement wouldn't be a bad  
> thing!
I might even go further and say that it's probably *more* important that 
that source materials are made available than the final maps?
> LGPL for (geo)data would be a real step forward.
Definitly. Although some kind of license written specifically for data 
with a LGPL is probably what we actually need?
> Follow-ups to the neglected legal-talk list? As its maintainer I feel  
> some paternal affection for the poor little thing.
The problem is that these things often start innocently on Talk....



More information about the talk mailing list