Hi,
On 21.07.2012 18:19, Adrian Frith wrote:
Do we really have to include the full notice "Contains information from
OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database
License (ODbL)" in the caption of every use of an OSM-derived map in a
Wikipedia article?
I don't know if the legal requirement is for having the attribution
directly visible but even if it is, it would be ok to have it in the
bitmap rather than in the caption.
By downloading
these relations and then converting them to a shapefile have I created
a "Derivative Database"?
Yes.
And by uploading the map to Wikimedia Commons
have I "Publicly Used" this database?
Yes.
Does this trigger section 4.6,
requiring me to offer the Derivative Database to any recipient of the
map (the "Produced Work")?
Yes.
Thing is, in the past I have generally
deleted these shapefiles when I'm done. If section 4.6 applies, am I
now also obliged to keep these forever in case someone requests a
copy? Or is it sufficient to say "download relations with the
following tags in the following bounding box"?
"... and convert them with program X using the parameters Y and Z." -
that should be sufficient in my eyes, however the license text says that
the description must be "machine readable" and I don't know what to make
of it. Could be argued you need to make available a shell script or so.
There seems to be a confusing relationship between section 4.4.c, which says:
A Derivative Database is Publicly Used and so must comply with Section 4.4.
if a Produced Work created from the Derivative Database is Publicly Used.
and section 4.5.b:
Using this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a
Collective Database to create a Produced Work does not create a Derivative
Database for purposes of Section 4.4
Which of these clauses applies to my scenario?
I read 4.5b as simply re-iterating that if you create a Produced Work
then you do not create a Derivative Database (by doing so); but in your
case, you create first a Derivative Database and then a Produced Work.
4.4c applies.
3. Subsequent reuse. In the above case, if necessary I can still at
least keep a copy of the shapefile and hand it out on request. But,
having uploaded the map to Wikimedia Commons, does section 4.6 apply
to others who reuse the map?
No. The Produced Work you create is uploaded to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA
and that's all that counts. CC-BY-SA would not allow additional
conditions (e.g. the making available of a source database) anyway. The
"Created from OdBL-licensed OSM data available here" that you have to
add to your Produced Work becomes, in the terms of CC-BY-SA, a
"copyright notice" that the CC-BY-SA user is required to "keep intact"
but that's all they have to do.
(It is important to note here that it would *not* be sufficient if
someone took the image from Wikipedia and then credited "Wikipedia" -
they *have* to continue to use the OSM attribution and ODbL license
notice or else they violate CC-BY-SA. But that's the same with any other
image on Wikipedia so I guess it should be clear to all.)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
