[OSM-talk] Osmarender 5

[80n]

Frederik
When you signed up to OSM you will have been presented with this statement:

"By creating an account, you agree that all work uploaded to
openstreetmap.org and all data created by use of any tools which connect to
openstreetmap.org is to be licensed under this Creative Commons license
(by-sa) <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/>."

You have every right to place your own work in the public domain but the
fact is that you have agreed that all work that you have uploaded to OSM is
also licensed under CC-BY-SA.  Your work is effectively dual licensed.

Asserting that it is (c) woodpeck is permissible as you have agreed that
your work can be licensed under CC-BY-SA.  It is equally permissible to
publish your data without this, but I think the publisher has the choice of
which license to use, not you.

However, if there were some way of being able to determine which users have
dual licensed their work under the public domain, then I would be happy to
incorporate this in such a way that t at h does not display your name.

With respect to your second point, it is the API that is at fault here.  If
the API provided a list of all the contributors for each way then t at h could
also provide the appropriate attribution.  Its the API that needs fixing
then the right thing can be rendered.  Anyway, it is not wrong to assert
copyright to (c) woodpeck in the event that other people have also
contributed to the same way, it is incomplete, but is more correct than not
doing so at all.

80n



On 9/1/07, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >      Why do many of the street names in Oakham have "(C) persons name"
> >      against them? This rather spoils the map IMO.
> >
> >    It's an experiment, I'd like to hear people's opinions.
>
> I am very strongly against this, for two reasons:
>
> (1) I have declared all my work to be in the Public Domain. I know
> that this doesn't legally exist, but having a "(c) woodpeck" (my
> screen name) next to road I have created conveys the message that
> some rights were reserved, which they aren't.
>
> I'm willing to wait for a consensus on this but if username rendering
> stays in I'll probably use a script to add a
> "osmarender:renderUser=no" to all data I have modified last.
>
> (2) I wish it were that easy with licensing but it isn't - the name of
> the user stated is *not* the sole holder of the license for the data
> of the way; he or she is just the last person who happens to have
> changed it. So even if I were not a PD guy, I would have to object to
> Osmarender giving the impression that I claimed sole copyright for a way
> which I only marginally modified.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070902/fd024154/attachment.html>