80n wrote: > There's a disconnect in your argument. No, there isn't, because:
> Your evenings of effort and your knowledge, skill and personal > judgement are not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing and are irrelevant. > The end product of all that effort is the thing that is relevant. That > end product benefits from one of it's inputs (OSM content) and the > rules for using that is that you should share alike and provide > attribution. is not consistently true. The end product of generalisation, label placement etc. (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in an Illustrator map is subject to CC-BY-SA licensing. The end product of designing an attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in an Illustrator map is subject to CC-BY-SA licensing. The end product of designing an attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in a dynamically rendered Flash map is not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing. Therefore: If the Illustrator map is published, the attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) can be trivially reverse-engineered and distributed under CC-BY-SA. If the dynamic Flash map is published, the attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) can be even more trivially reverse-engineered, but cannot be distributed under CC-BY-SA. In other words: CC-BY-SA, when applied to OSM, is entirely arbitrary (and I would contend unfair) in defining what "knowledge, skill and personal judgement" falls under the share-alike clause. Why do you think I started Potlatch 2 by writing a dynamic Flash rendering engine? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751761.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk