On 10/16/09, Erik Johansson <erjo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst > <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: >> >> Erik Johansson wrote: >>> Open Database License (ODbL) >>> “Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases” >> >> Yep. Exactly. >> >> CC-BY-SA, famously, allows you to combine different types of "creative >> content" as a collective work. Wikipedia regularly combines GFDL text with >> CC-BY-SA photos, and no-one bats an eyelid: it's a collective work. > > I now have a practical case. > > Routes for public transports are usually printed on a map, this map is > usually licensed and it might be difficult to get permissions to > distribute the map on the net (see picture). So how do I get to use > OSM data for free?
you always get to use OSM data for free - that's the point! i guess what you mean is "how do i get to use OSM data in conjunction with other licensed data without releasing the other licensed data?" under the linking system described previously in this thread (hereafter The Fairhurst Doctrine), i think that the following would be required: > I can store my data as > 1. already georeffed shape files if neither the geometry, not any attributes, have come from OSM, then there's no need to release them. even if the shapefile is rendered together with OSM data, it doesn't create a derivative database at any point - it's essentially the same as rendering a pushpin mashup - so it's a collective work. > 2. shapefiles of the routes that are created from OSM data anything that comes from OSM would need to be released, e.g: geometry or attributes. other attributes not coming from OSM may not, under the Fairhurst Doctrine, unless they are modifications of attributes already existing in OSM. in my view, the shapefile geometry would need to be released, along with a dbx file containing all the attributes which originated with or derived from OSM, but not ones from any non-OSM dataset. however, it's possible that the whole dbx file may be considered a "whole derivative database", as dbx files aren't capable of the sort of relational linkage that was discussed before. > 3. route relations in OSM format, but no from OSM (just referencing IDs in > OSM) i think this doesn't require any release of those relations, as they're basically just lists of OSM way IDs. under the Fairhurst Doctrine, such lists aren't "qualitatively substantial" and therefore aren't derivative databases. > 4. description used by bus drivers to get around there's nothing in the description derived from OSM, so my view is that this doesn't need to be released. it's a list of directions, after all. > Then a separate database with Share-Alike Openstreetmap data. this would need to be made available, of course. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
