[OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>wrote:

>
> 80n wrote:
> > You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
> > to have a deep understanding of the issues.  If CC BY-SA is as broken
> > as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others
> > would all have helped themselves to our data by now.
> >
> > You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some
> > evidence of our data being abused.  Put up or shut up, please.
>
> Ok.
>
> Assiduous readers of legal-talk will know about the "machine-generated
> derivative" loophole which Frederik and I independently identified; which
> has been confirmed for us on the CC mailing lists; and which CC will not
> fix
> because they don't believe people should use a creative works licence for
> data.
>
> Under CC-BY-SA, attribution and share-alike are required when you
> distribute
> OSM data, or a derivative of it.
>
> They are not required, of course, if you don't distribute the data. If I
> write a program that downloads planet.osm to my hard disc, then replaces
> the
> word "node" with "nude" throughout, I don't have to give it back or
> attribute OSM.
>
> In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
> share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
> derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly
> permissible
> under CC-BY-SA.
>
> This is trivial because you can distribute programs as part of a webpage -
> for example, as JavaScript (e.g. Cartagen) or Flash (e.g. Halcyon).
>
> To this end, because you would like to see some evidence of the data being
> 'abused', I've temporarily removed the attribution from
> http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ . This is now using OSM data without any
> credit, perfectly legally.
>


This is a nice demonstration of a flaw in CC BY-SA.  So apart from you
making this site in order to demonstrate the flaw, can you point to anyone
who is actually really using this loophole?  The fact is that given a
reasonable license most people respect the spirit of it.

And the ODbL fixes this by making it permissible to do what you've just
done, right?

Do you have any real world examples that you can share?






> I also give notice that I intend to write an iPhone application which uses
> the same loophole to download OSM data, creates a derivative, and neither
> attributes OSM nor offers the derivative under the terms of CC-BY-SA.
>
> cheers
> Richard
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26665018.html
> Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091206/040a079a/attachment.html>