Kai Krueger wrote: > Am I allowed to declare my png mapnik tile as a "derived database", stick an > ODbL label on it an be done with it? > > Then I don't have to reverse engineer my render to figure out if or if not > it produces an internal database and worry about having to maintaining a > snapshot of that database for ever and what legal consequences there might > be if my dog eats the backup, etc. I'd be back to the simplicity of > CC-BY-SA, i.e. that all obligations of the licenses are met within the work > I hand out itself and have no additional work (or worries) beyond producing > the product in the first place.
+1, I couldn't have expressed this better. For many use cases, it's a massive burden that you need to hand out other things besides the product you originally wanted to produce. The worst part is, of course, that nobody seems to be able to tell you with any certainty what these "things" are. But even without that uncertainty, it's often just plain impractical: Right now, Joe Mapper can download a 3D renderer/viewer (= use case which is relevant for me personally), load an .osm file to have a virtual landscape generated, fly around a bit, hit PrtSc to take a snapshot of his carefully-mapped home town and proudly publish it on his blog, make it available on gnome-look.org as a desktop background or whatever. The requirement to publish the image with a CC-BY-SA label attached seems perfectly reasonable and easy to comply with. But with ODbL, he suddenly might have to publish the "temporary database" that the 3D renderer created in the process. He will not even understand what he needs to do, and if he did, he'd have a hard time uploading that x00 MB binary blob to gnome-look.org alongside with his desktop background. And nobody would want it anyway! -- Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
