Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Alex, I wouldn't worry too much about this. You simply state that the mapping (including any derivative elements) is CC-By-SA. Anything you have added to the map that is not derivative or based on it (i.e. your Logo) remains (C). If anyone wants to actually scan that map, and try to sell lack-lustre copies (after going to the length or re-doing the marginalia) they can - they won't get very far. Having said that, simply printing OSM as a royalty free version of an A-Z map is not very creative. Try to come up with a custom rendering that does something your customers want. Just my $0.02 Phil On 7 June 2010 18:04, Alexrk alex...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi, I've got a question about the current CC license: Let's say one would like to create a tourist map from OSM data - eg like those AZ city plans (http://www.a-zmaps.co.uk/?nid=354) Am I right that such a tourist map could only be published under a CC-like license again? In other words, if I do so and sell just one copy of that map, any Big Publishing Co could duplicate and sell the same on its own for ..hmm.. half the price? So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would be able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a ROI on that work? Regards Alex -- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alexrk2 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Frederik Ramm schrieb am 08.06.2010 00:50: There are lots of business models that work with share-alike data; it is just that the old business models which are exclusively based on pay me or I sue you don't work. Hmm, if I buy OSM-related consulting services at Geofabrik and don't pay for it - you don't wanna sue me? *zwinker* I really wouldn't differentiate much between new and old models - which I believe is somewhat PR speak anyway. There might be simple and more complex models. If a simple model works as well, so why not. Actually it was just a fixed idea that came to my mind and I wondered how this would comply with share-alike - without making it too complicated. Just for fun, you know. I didn't intended to start a sophisticated, value added, ad-financed business model. This might go to the wrong address again, Frederik, but sometimes I receive an impression, that some OSM folks distinguish users between leechers and contributers and we and they. Which I think is not appropriate. I believe, everybody who gets involved in doing something with OSM is a gain for OSM, even if one doesn't contribute data directly. Some folks might develop software around OSM (or report bugs), some develop new ideas and even if they just proliferate OSM in some way it will help making OSM more popular and attract new mappers. Thanks again for your ideas and opinions. Regards Alex -- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alexrk2 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk mailing list archive is broken
Hi, for some reason, the mailing list archive has been renumbered. When I search for something in Google now, I will find a mailing list post, wen when I click on the link, I see something else. Go back, click on cached, and see the real thing. See e.g. this article from 2007 in which another article is referenced: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000179.html however if you click on the link you are led to a completely different article than the one the link was pointing to originally! Can it be fixed? 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Hi, Alexrk wrote: Hmm, if I buy OSM-related consulting services at Geofabrik and don't pay for it - you don't wanna sue me? *zwinker* I'd probably just sell the debt to a collection agency ;-) Geofabrik sells a lot of custom data extracts where the customer gets exactly what they want, and thus while CC-BY-SA allows them to pass it on, someone else is likely to prefer getting their own custom extract rather than using something made for a different purpose. The old model, in my eyes, is: I have something which anybody *could* copy without any damage to me; however I use copyright to threaten people not to do what they could easily do. It is widely used in the media industry. It is attractive because at least in theory it scales indefinitely - someone using this model can always dream of his photo being used for the iPad desktop or something. You are right in questioning the terms old and new because obviously my old model only came into being through the advent of digital technology. I much prefer something I'd call a craftsman model - I do some work for you, and you pay me for it. This obviously doesn't scale quantitatively - I can try to do work that is worth more thus raising my income, but I cannot work 48 hours in a day. There might be simple and more complex models. If a simple model works as well, so why not. The simpler, the better. I just don't like those models that threaten users. If I buy a kitchen mixer I can do with it whatever I please - I can take it apart, use the motor to drive a fan, and later re-assemble or sell it. Anything that is physically possible is also allowed. I'd like it to be like that with digital goods as well. Actually it was just a fixed idea that came to my mind and I wondered how this would comply with share-alike - without making it too complicated. Just for fun, you know. I didn't intended to start a sophisticated, value added, ad-financed business model. As I said, you're preaching to the choir; actually I have always used an example very similar to what you write in the share-alike discussion: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000169.html This might go to the wrong address again, Frederik, but sometimes I receive an impression, that some OSM folks distinguish users between leechers and contributers and we and they. Which I think is not appropriate. I believe, everybody who gets involved in doing something with OSM is a gain for OSM, even if one doesn't contribute data directly. Personally I tend to differentiate between the legal and the moral situation. Legally I'd like it all to be PD. Morally. however, if someone comes along and uses OSM data and behaves as if it was all his, I tend to be critical of that attitude. Just like in science really, where as a scientist you generally have access to anything done by others and you are not even legally required to provide attribution, but if you don't the community will oust you. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk mailing list archive is broken
On 08/06/10 14:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: for some reason, the mailing list archive has been renumbered. When I search for something in Google now, I will find a mailing list post, wen when I click on the link, I see something else. Go back, click on cached, and see the real thing. See e.g. this article from 2007 in which another article is referenced: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000179.html however if you click on the link you are led to a completely different article than the one the link was pointing to originally! Somebody probably asked us to remove something - that requires a rebuild of the archive. Specifically in this case I think Richard had forwarded an email sent to the list owner to the list, and the author of the email objected and asked for it to be removed. Can it be fixed? Nope. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works
Alexrk wrote: Am I right that such a tourist map could only be published under a CC-like license again? In other words, if I do so and sell just one copy of that map, any Big Publishing Co could duplicate and sell the same on its own for ..hmm.. half the price? Why not? As long as only the map itself is copied and not the huge amount of background information, you'll have to print on a good tourist map. Anything you add, which is not based on OSM data, is your work and you decide on how to license it. Why should someone be able to make thousands of dollars with work, he didn't create on his own? If you want to have the full copyright on your work, then you'll have to pay a license for a commercial map or fetch all data on your own. Yours Manuel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
