Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Alex, Alexrk wrote: Am I right that such a tourist map could only be published under a CC-like license again? In other words, if I do so and sell just one copy of that map, any Big Publishing Co could duplicate and sell the same on its own for ..hmm.. half the price? Correct. So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would be able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a ROI on that work? Our standard reply is that you cannot expect to apply old-world business models to our new world order. There is a lot of room for really creative things; taking our map and printing an A-Z is not exactly a prime example of creativity. The suggested ODbL license changes situation by allowing you to make a produced work and license that under a non-share-alike license as long as the produced work is not a database. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
On 7 June 2010 21:40, Alexrk alex...@yahoo.de wrote: Frederik Ramm schrieb am 07.06.2010 19:36: So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would be able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a ROI on that work? Our standard reply is that you cannot expect to apply old-world business models to our new world order. There is a lot of room for really creative things; taking our map and printing an A-Z is not exactly a prime example of creativity. Tnx Frederik. You might like AZ (or Falk or whatever) or not - but please don't underestimate the creative work of cartographers. Making a good readable, fine-looking paper map is far more than installing Mapnik, choosing some color styles and pressing the render-button. Why making to much assumptions or restriction regarding the kind of business models evolving behind OSM? I think it's not a good attitude to say, we don't like or respect this or that usage of OSM because it's too old school, it's not Web 2.0 or ..geez.. someone claims his own license for his IP (damn capitalist ;-)). You're probably talking to the wrong person because Frederik is one of the PD advocates and just gave an answer to your question. But I like the Share alike rule and if you use the data produced by osm, osm wants to be able to use the result under the same license. Otherwise the situation may become like with the Map_Features cheat-mug, it's only sold locally, but at the same time nobody else in the world can produce identical mugs. In this case however I'm not sure, the CC-By-SA is not precise about what part of the work is share alike: only the data, or also the style you used? (It's not precise because it wasn't made for data obviously..) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F talks about the case where you're using only the data, not tiles, and says that then you need to state map data CC-such-and-such which implies that the rest is not necessarily CC-such-and-such. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Alex, Alexrk wrote: You might like AZ (or Falk or whatever) or not - but please don't underestimate the creative work of cartographers. Making a good readable, fine-looking paper map is far more than installing Mapnik, choosing some color styles and pressing the render-button. I know. Why making to much assumptions or restriction regarding the kind of business models evolving behind OSM? I think it's not a good attitude to say, we don't like or respect this or that usage of OSM because it's too old school, it's not Web 2.0 or ..geez.. someone claims his own license for his IP (damn capitalist ;-)). I am also of the opinion that it is desirable to give people as much freedom in working with our data as possible, so you are preaching to the choir here. But not everyone in our project will agree that the concept of IP is a good thing. You seem to be relatively sure about the idea that anything you add on top of OSM data is yours and yours alone - but if you take your finished A-Z product, and remove from it the data taken from OSM, and remove from it the tricks you have learned from the old masters when you studied cartography (surely that's their IP, no?), and remove from it the nicely matching colour palettes that you have downloaded from a web site, and remove from it the font which has taken someone a full year to design, and remove from it the work of Mercator and those who came before him... is your own contribution in all of this really so large that it warrants that you should get 100% of the credit and revenue? I think that IP is grossly overestimated and overused in our society. Recently I used the tube in London and saw that even there some group of lawyers had an ad campaign aimed at people who think they are up to something and need that protected. I have had to sign countless NDAs in my life only for people to divulge stuff that any thinking person could come up with. Incidentally that it also the reason why I am against share-alike licenses - because they are rooted in IP, in the idea that our work of recording stuff around us somehow entitles us to dictate our terms and conditions to others. Just like you think that it is of course all yours if you design a good map from OSM data, OSMers assert that it is all theirs. I find both positions morally questionable. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Frederik Ramm schrieb am 07.06.2010 22:55: Incidentally that it also the reason why I am against share-alike licenses - because they are rooted in IP, in the idea that our work of recording stuff around us somehow entitles us to dictate our terms and conditions to others. Just like you think that it is of course all yours if you design a good map from OSM data, OSMers assert that it is all theirs. I find both positions morally questionable. I don't want to deny the work of OSM and I don't want to say this part is mine or this is yours. And of course I think OSM should be credited properly as the data provider. So ok, maybe the term IP is a bit unfortunate. Certainly we always stand on the shoulders of giants. We should also credit those clever guys who invented GPS and the computer etc ..that's not the point. It's merely a problem of restricted possibilities I see with share-alike in that case. Lets assume someone works two weeks - hunch darkly night after night over Adobe Illustrator, coming up with a handmade city map of Hamburg. OK voila nice, now lets try to sell it in a small edition of printed copies (BoD or whatsoever). But why should one invest two weeks of work + advance payments for the printing costs, if another big publishing house can take that map and sell it for half the price, just because that company didn't had your sunk costs (and possess much cheaper publishing abilities). Sounds not so promissing. From that point of view, share-alike would even benefit monopolies - as typically any other sunk cost-intensive production does. I think, I begin to understand, that CC is really not the right license for OSM. Regards Alex -- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alexrk2 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Alex, Alexrk wrote: Lets assume someone works two weeks - hunch darkly night after night over Adobe Illustrator, coming up with a handmade city map of Hamburg. OK voila nice, now lets try to sell it in a small edition of printed copies (BoD or whatsoever). But why should one invest two weeks of work + advance payments for the printing costs, if another big publishing house can take that map and sell it for half the price, just because that company didn't had your sunk costs (and possess much cheaper publishing abilities). One idea would be to make a deal with them and have them commission you to make that map. If they make a good wholesome product of it, and they don't sell at too much of a markup, would people rather buy their original product or the chinese facsimile for half the price? Another idea would be combining the OSM map with other, original content which makes the product something nice and special; that other stuff, if it is not derived from OSM, would not be CC-BY-SA, so while anyone can copy the map, they cannot copy the other stuff, and thus can never reproduce the whole that you have created. There are lots of business models that work with share-alike data; it is just that the old business models which are exclusively based on pay me or I sue you don't work. Sounds not so promissing. From that point of view, share-alike would even benefit monopolies - as typically any other sunk cost-intensive production does. I don't follow your argument here. A Monopoly means there is only one provider of maps who can dictate the price. Whereas with share-alike, as soon as the would-be monopolist makes big profits, others will come and copy his map. Where's the monopoly there? I think, I begin to understand, that CC is really not the right license for OSM. CC is not the right license for OSM, but not for any of the reasons you have mentioned. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
