Grant Slater <openstreet...@...> writes: >>I think it's pretty clear that data, if derived from the OSM data, would need >>to be distributed under the same share-alike terms. > >Yes under CC-BY-SA only the product created from the data.
I don't think this is a meaningful distinction - or else I am not understanding you correctly. The OSM planet file, for example, is a product created from the OSM data, by putting it into a convenient XML format. Are you really saying that copyright does not apply to the planet file? It is data, and is copyright, and thus must be distributed under CC-BY-SA or not at all. The Oxford English Dictionary is also just a big lump of data, but is indisputably covered by copyright too. >I'm part of the sysadmin team and LWG. There are no plans to restrict >OSM.org tiles now or in the future. (subject to >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy ) >On an adoption of ODbL the OSM tiles will most likely remain CC-BY-SA >licensed too. As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain? >>>But I'm not really talking about infringements per se; I'm talking about >>>circumventing the spirit of CC-BY-SA within the letter of CC-BY-SA. The >>>"computer-generated derivative" previously discussed here and on >>>cc-community is the obvious example; you can avoid having to share if you >>>combine on the client rather than the server. >> >>That's more interesting. Yes, you can run a program on your local computer >>to download data (or any copyrighted work, really) and make manipulations to >>it. >I am misunderstandin; local changes (non-distributed) on ODbL licensed >data are not restricted. I thought Richard F. above was implying that ODbL had the power to stop people making, for example, a local client program which downloads OSM data plus some proprietary data set, combining it locally, and using it without distributing it further. If so, that would be a rather nasty licence condition. But I may not have got what he meant. >At the moment under CC-BY-SA we have a ver fuzzy set of ideas/rules >what is and what isn't allowed. Sure ODbL+DbCL+CTs is more text, but >things are a lot clearer cut. I am not sure because there are so many fuzzy concepts which don't get nailed down - like the seemingly nonsensical distinction between the map 'database' and the 'database contents', or the vague definition of Produced Work. A licence written specifically about maps and geodata and using more specific terms would work a lot better. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
