On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer >> <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> "If I have data derived from OSM data, do I have to distribute it? The >>> licence does not force you to distribute or make any data available. But if >>> you do choose to distribute it, or anything derived from it, it must be >>> under the same licence terms as the OSM data." >>> >>> I read this like cloudmade could use their maps for their own purposes >>> without redistributing it, or they have to put their maps under cc-by-sa 2.0 >>> as well. Or did I misunderstand something? >> >> Well...does showing a map on a website mean you are "distributing" it? > > That's somewhat disputed in the US. If you're not "distributing" it, > then you're publicly displaying it. But most courts have said it's > "distribution", despite the fact that people arguing for "public > display" have a better legal argument :). > > CC-BY-SA doesn't seem to have any provision for public display of > modified versions. Which I suppose technically means you're not > allowed to do it at all.
doesn't it? section 4b: "You may distribute, **publicly display**, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, ..." (emphasis mine) i don't see what the fuss is about - cloudmade's tiles are CC BY-SA, cloudmade's site isn't. you can redistribute a screenshot containing only tiles under CC BY-SA. you can't distribute a screenshot of the whole site, as that would contain non-CC BY-SA stuff. although i'm sure if you asked nicely, cloudmade wouldn't mind. as richardf pointed out, the legalese could be clearer. but to me it's already clear enough. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
