From: "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch> > I'm not ruling out the first interpretation either and potentially both > licenses would have to apply in full (which isn't possible without > conflict).
I would like to clarify once again that I really do want to attribute OSM. But it's damn difficult for me to find out under which license my work falls. I know lots of people, loading OSM tiles in QGIS and draw stuff on it. So I'm pretty confused that there aren't any guidelines discussed. > But if the shape files are simply used for display purposes as a > tendency I would find that they are still being used as a produced work > as per > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline > Which from the ODbL pov requires attribution and a pointer back to the > data source, which you can provide without being in conflict with CC > BY-SA terms that you would have to adhere to. No, the shapefile will be used for further geoprocessing: selection of POI, which are non-free, but fall into the border I've digitized upon the OSM background map. Would you recommend 1. to use another datasource as background map or 2. draw all borders on an OSM extract once again? Since neither the drawing, nor my digitalization uses OSM data, I'm really asking myself if it's not a trivial act at all? Wouldn't "Drawn on OSM tiles in CC-BY-SA 2.0, based on OSM data in ODbL" be enough as attribution? _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
