On 17 June 2010 10:00, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > >> The whole thing creates a single creative work. >> > > The term "single creative work" is not used in the CC license text.
Displaying OSM content and other content side-by-side does not form a "work > derived from OpenStreetMap" according to community consensus. Sorry if I've neglected to look into this issue in more detail. May I ask, which community consensus are you referring to? OSM or CC? My understanding was the intention behind a share-alike clause is to compel people using the work to release their works under similar licences. If the OSM community doesn't really care about forcing licencing on others, then I actually think we have reached the same conclusion. See my notes in the last paragraph. > You need to do more than just display them side by side if you wanted to > trigger the share-alike clause. (Compare: Just because a music CD contains > one track licensed CC-BY-SA, this doesn't mean the whole CD has to be, even > if the CC-BY-SA licensed track has been selected to match the theme. The > whole has not been "built upon" the part.) I don't think this is the correct analogy to draw. I feel that a result of a search query is more like a single track on a CD. Elements within the result query (or the track) can be divided further, but the whole result/track is a single work. If you include another artist's work inside that track, I assume that would trigger the share-alike clause. The real thrust of my argument was that if widespread adoption of OSM & attributation is the goal of the community, then OSM should reduce its licencing requirements. Shifting to CC-BY would align more strongly with the comments I've seen in this thread. Tim
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
