On 02/02/11 13:21, Rob Myers wrote:
On 02/01/2011 06:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Peter says that
I would consider the proposed resulting work to be 'two or more
distinct, separate and independent works selected and arranged into a
collective whole with the ccbysa content being used in an entirely
unmodified form'.
If it's a whole then by definition it's not a collection (a "mere
aggregation").
By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is
asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long
as the CC-BY content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other
things to form a collective work. The CC-BY licenses do not say that
they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before.
Layers combined destructively (such as in print) are modified, and so
are an adaptation.
Firstly, the topmost layer is clearly unmodified by this kind of
combination. If a CC-BY tile is below the top layer, then yes, you could
argue that it is either modified, or no longer being used whole, by
parts of it being hidden. But if we're talking about using OSM data,
which is made up of points, as long as they're unmodified before
"assembly" - ie rendering - then I still think it's a collective work
and only has to be attributed, not restricted to the same license.
ODbL is much clearer about this, but has this same effect - produced
works have to be attributed but it doesn't attempt to force a license on
them, only on the database they came from.
Jonathan (not-a-lawyer, but a user-of-lawyers)
--
Jonathan Harley : Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd
Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
