Thanks, Christopher, for the explanations. I'm fascinated by the legally relevant nuances but I wonder how far we really want to go into these gory details being rather technicians than lawers?
Are these questions solved for OSM worldwide when ODBL is out? Or wouldn't there be still country specific viral/GPL-alike versions left to be issued? At the bottom line, I think, having a PD/BSD-like license for open geodata (like OSM should hopefully be), would give us more time to innovate than to have (nice) discussions without any legally relevant conclusion. -S. 2009/6/3 Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 06:22:04PM -0500, P Kishor wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Steve Coast <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:51 PM, Stefan Keller wrote: > > > > > >> "..., OSM doesn't even let you do mashups." [1] > > > ... > > > [1] > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03286.html > > > > > > That's a confusing statement from SteveC: If one can't make mashups > with > > > OSM, then we really have either to change OSM's license or stop > speaking of > > > OSM being open (or launch an own project perhaps called > 'OpenBaseMap'?). > > > > > > One of the things I've learnt over the last year is that the things I > > > say tongue in cheek on mailing lists are often misconstrued. This was > one of > > > those things. Basically there are some unfortunate cases in CC which do > > > indeed make mashups difficult, > > > > could you please elaborate what are the "unfortunate cases in CC" that > > make mashups difficult? > > It depends on the interpretation of "Collective" vs. "Derivative" work. > > As it stands now, the common interpretation is basically: > * If you have different map 'layers' -- seperate objects -- it's > *probably* a collective work. If you don't, it's probably a > derivative work. > > * If you have a mashup which works by putting multiple layers into the > same image, it's probably a derivative work. > > A use case one can imagine is using the Google Maps Static API, which > takes information from a URL and plots it directly into an image. IF you > use the Google Maps Javascript API, it's collective, and okay, but if it > ends up in the same image, it's a derivative, and since you can't > provide GMaps under the CC-SA license, it's a violation of the license. > > This falls into a number of categories: If I'm a magazine editor, and I > want to use OSM maps for the 'base' of all the maps I use for stories, I > can't do it, because it means I have to give away that derivative image > away under CC-SA. (There has been some discussion about whether the > magazine itself would need to be SA, but I believe that's effectivelwy > been determined to usually be collective.) > > With OSM being most effective as a base map, not having the ability to > produce works which include other non-open data is a significant > blocker. the ODBL is a step in the direction of making it clear that > this is allowed in more cases, I believe. > > (This is from my personal readings of various mailing lists, and does > not represent the legal opinions of anyone, or the opinions of OSM, my > employer, or anyone else.) > > Regards, > -- > Christopher Schmidt > MetaCarta > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org >
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
