[OSM-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like application for hikers

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Tue Jun 4 16:15:01 UTC 2019


In that case, if I were you, I'd just go straight CC-BY with a OSM/ODbL
compatibility waiver. (See
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ for template
language)
The "sharealike" in SA refers to the sharing conditions on derivatives, not
the original. The BY part refers to the attribution requirement, which
should inform future users how the panos are available under the original
license.

CC-BY-SA would not permit the video I described being released on CC-BY
terms, for example


On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 11:52 PM Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> All I really want is to ensure the panos as individual entities (i.e. not
> as part of another piece of work) must be attributed (to "OTV360
> contributors") and must be available as individual entities under the same
> permissive license as originally provided.
>
>
> I am not so bothered if people then use them as part of some other piece
> of work which is commercial  (such as a video with a narration, as you
> suggested) - as long as they are attributed.
>
>
> Would ODBL be the best license in this case? Or CC-by-SA?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Kathleen Lu <kathleen.lu at mapbox.com>
> *Sent:* 03 June 2019 18:03:50
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Martin Koppenhoefer; Milo van der Linden; OSM Talk
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like application
> for hikers
>
> So to confirm what you want...
> If someone wanted to use the panos in a video, stitched together with
> photos they took and narration about a hike, that video must be CC-BY-SA or
> the panos cannot be used, is that right?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Martin,
>
>
> Yes, that sounds a good idea.
>
>
> So (and asking everyone) if I was to license the panos themselves under
> CC-SA,  but their locations, and data derived from them, as ODBL - does
> that sound acceptable?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 01 June 2019 08:25
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Kathleen Lu; Milo van der Linden; OSM Talk
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like application
> for hikers
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 31. May 2019, at 22:13, Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Kathleen and Milo,
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> No-one besides myself has uploaded anything yet, so happy to change to
> ODbL. The panoramas are a different dataset to OSM however, now I think
> about it, it could well be they are a 'derived work' as the OSM map helps
> users to position them - so fine with the license change.
>
>
>
> maybe you can make use of 2 licenses, cc-by-sa for the images/panoramas
> and odbl for data derived from these images? ODbL is a db license and isn’t
> very suitable for individual photographs?
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190604/f4a859d7/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list