Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 18:58, Rob Myers wrote: On 02/02/2011 06:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. The intent of the licence is to protect the freedom of individuals to use the map. Any derivative work must therefore be under the same licence. Making works where all the elements are not free is precisely what this is intended to protect against. In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent. Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. J. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote: Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you disagree with it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5988247.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 18:00, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. I don't see what print's got to do with it. Me neither. I don't agree with using javascript and layers to try to subvert the intent of the license. I think Frederick is wrong when he says If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each. I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. I'm not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. The license doesn't even mention data, and attribution is not enough. OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. The license says that attribution is enough for collective works, in that share-alike does not apply to the other components of a collective work (this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License). Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1 legal professional. Let's just wait until it goes to court, I say. I'll be interested to see who is so incensed about OSM's data being combined with non-SA third-party data, and how they claim they are suffering losses by the third-party data not being made available to them under CC-BY-SA. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you disagree with it. Like I said, my interpretation of the license - like everyone's - is guided by what we think the intent of it is. J. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/03/2011 10:13 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent. BY-SA is not a permissive or gift economy licence, it is a copyleft licence. Its intent is precisely to ensure that the freedom to use the work is inalienable. Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. Except those individuals who would not be free to use the results. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. I'm not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. Whose intent are we talking about, here? The intent of some may have been to use CC-BY-SA as though it were not a copyleft license (*), but I seriously doubt that was the intention of most of us. (*) To wit, Cloudmade seems to use it that way. The license doesn't even mention data, and attribution is not enough. OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1 legal professional. Depends who the amateurs are. The interpretation of a single legal professional is fairly worthless, unless you've paid that legal professional for advice. Let's just wait until it goes to court, I say. It won't go to court. I'll be interested to see who is so incensed about OSM's data being combined with non-SA third-party data, and how they claim they are suffering losses by the third-party data not being made available to them under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you disagree with it. Like I said, my interpretation of the license - like everyone's - is guided by what we think the intent of it is. You can't just make up the intent without any regard to what the license says about what its intent is. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. Whose intent are we talking about, here? Put another way, feel free to use the content of the people who chose to relicense under the ODbL, as if CC-BY-SA were the ODbL. But for the content of those of us who have *not* chosen to relicense under the ODbL, you need to respect that our intent was to release our work under CC-BY-SA, and not the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 03/02/11 14:23, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.netwrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. I'm not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. Whose intent are we talking about, here? The OSMF, I suppose, since they're driving the change. The intent of some may have been to use CC-BY-SA as though it were not a copyleft license (*), but I seriously doubt that was the intention of most of us. (*) To wit, Cloudmade seems to use it that way. I assume you're referring to the fact that Cloudmade's tiles are not released as CC-BY-SA but Copyright Cloudmade, which I take as evidence that simply rendering OSM's data is not considered altering, transforming, or building upon OSM. The license doesn't even mention data, and attribution is not enough. OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright - if you think it's incorrect, you should probably take that up with the OSMF, which is the publisher of www.openstreetmap.org (so one can assume that the website represents the OSMF's view). Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1 legal professional. Depends who the amateurs are. The interpretation of a single legal professional is fairly worthless, unless you've paid that legal professional for advice. Absolutely. No doubt Cloudmade have done so, and Peter has said that he will do at some stage. If I ever want to publish non-PD data on top of an OSM map I will certainly do that too. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
The license doesn't even mention data, and attribution is not enough. OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright - if you think it's incorrect, you should probably take that up with the OSMF, which is the publisher of www.openstreetmap.org (so one can assume that the website represents the OSMF's view). OSMF is entitled to any view it wants. But OSMF does not own the OSM database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote: On 03/02/11 14:23, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright - if you think it's incorrect, you should probably take that up with the OSMF, which is the publisher of www.openstreetmap.org (so one can assume that the website represents the OSMF's view). You are, once again, misunderstanding. The cited webpage says: If you are using OpenStreetMap map images, we request that your credit reads at least '© OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA'. If you are using map data only, we request 'Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA'. That is perfectly correct. If you build (say) your own rendering using OSM map data, then only the map data is (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. The added value of the rendering is not (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. OSM's contributors can ask you to credit them in a particular way for the data, and you have to maintain that in any credit given with the rendering, but you may of course request your own credit for the added value. That is what the above says. However, the rendering _is_ still subject to CC-BY-SA. That is made perfectly clear on the cited page (If you... build upon our... data, you may distribute the result only under the same licence); in the CC human-readable terms; and the CC legal code. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5990496.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
2011/2/1 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: I know that at OSM we always used to say: If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each; if not, then not. Of course this would result in a map that can *not* be copied under CC-BY-SA because it is virtually impossible to make a copy and leave out the foreign data that has been printed on top. I agree with you that such a map would probably have to be considered produced work and not collective, but IANAL. At least our intentions with cc-by-sa are that such a work would become completely cc-by-sa (or can't be produced if this is not possible), isn't that the whole point with the desired viral aspect? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote: What is meant by content is unmodified? Obviously the printed base map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other interpretation for content is unmodified that you can think of? I have assumed it refers to the geodata, which is unmodified unless you start changing the latitudes and longitudes of points. That's the only reading I can think of that makes any sense of the phrase unmodified form in the context of map data (in fact, of any kind of data). It couldn't possibly refer to the geodata, because the license is usable for more than just geodata. My take is that it refers to the separate and independent work. So that means you can make any modifications you want, so long as those modifications are CC-BY-SA. These modifications are made under the clause allowing you to make derivative works, not under the clause allowing you to use the work as part of a collection. It's only when you start adding non-CC-BY-SA works to the collection that you no longer can make modifications. Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. Is that what you mean by prohibits everything or allows everything? Yes. It seems clear to me that the CC licenses are attempting to allow stuff but impose conditions, not to prohibit everything. I agree, and that's why I think my interpretation of what separate and independent means is correct. I think you have to look at the requirements of separate, independent, and unmodified together as a whole, not as independent requirements. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is more clear on this, though you could still argue that it has the same loophole. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/2011 05:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and co-dependency - the question of does the overlaid stuff work without the map. So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its meaning without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your photo just sits there and could just as well sit there without the map, then it could be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I necessarily share and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has something going for it. Combining image elements (that may or may not embody data) is collage. Collage produces derivative works, not collective works: http://www.google.com/search?q=collage+derivative+work Individual photos over a map are like individual samples over a backing beat (IANAL, TINLA). People haven't had much luck arguing that the latter doesn't create a derivative work. I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have indeed been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully CC-BY-SA'ed because it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That* I call a strict reading (and one I clearly don't share). Wikipedia would agree with you. :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote: And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm This is a funny example because you could conceivably cut out a corner from the map, then place the image where it is now... it is just about conceivable to make a copy of this map without copying the image so maybe this could work as a collection. I think so. The main point that I would argue is that the modification of cutting out a corner is independent from the image. I suppose you could argue the same if you cut out holes from an OSM map, without knowing what you were going to put there, and then laid in copyrightable non-CC-BY-SA elements into the holes. Maybe technically legal, but definitely a subversion of the spirit of the license. How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Certainly the whole map needs to by CC-BY-SA. We did have some pages with examples about this on our wiki, years ago. I remember the example was a tourist guide with maps and photos, and there were several cases where maps and photos (and text) were sometimes superimposed, sometimes side-by-side, and the whole thing was commented as to what is derived and what is collected. I cannot find it now, however. I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and co-dependency - the question of does the overlaid stuff work without the map. So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its meaning without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your photo just sits there and could just as well sit there without the map, then it could be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I necessarily share and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has something going for it. Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have indeed been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully CC-BY-SA'ed because it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That* I call a strict reading (and one I clearly don't share). Bye Frederik ___ 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 / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to paper or to a screen, changes the bits used; if you take that as the meaning of modified, then there could be no unmodified renderings of any database, which means in turn that there could be no collective works, so the conditions about being separate and independent would be irrelevant. But I don't think that rendered is a sensible meaning of modified in this context, any more than changing the font or line length would be considered modifying a text. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. I don't see what print's got to do with it. Me neither. I don't agree with using javascript and layers to try to subvert the intent of the license. I think Frederick is wrong when he says If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each. However... Any rendering, whether to paper or to a screen, changes the bits used; One argument which could be used is that a rendering to a screen is not fixed, therefore it is not a derivative work. For a US case where this was successfully argued, see Galoob v. Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.). However, I believe there was a more recent ruling regarding website framing which largely limited the application of Galoob v. Nintendo to websites. if you take that as the meaning of modified, then there could be no unmodified renderings of any database, I agree. which means in turn that there could be no collective works, so the conditions about being separate and independent would be irrelevant. Did you read my earlier explanation? The rendered map is released under CC-BY-SA, and then *that* can be part of a collective work. Alternatively, the database, as it exists on disk, is a collective work with the other files on disk being other works which are part of the collection. There's no bar against collective works. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/2011 05:49 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote: I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to paper or to a screen, changes the bits used; if you take that as the Where multiple sources of bits are combined to produce a single new work, that new work is a derivative of each source. meaning of modified, then there could be no unmodified renderings of any database, which means in turn that there could be no collective works, so the conditions about being separate and independent would be irrelevant. Combining multiple elements into a new derivative work is not the same as mechanically transforming a single element to produce a new derivative work. It is easy to distinguish them conceptually, legally, and in the licence. But I don't think that rendered is a sensible meaning of modified in Combined and printed is, though. this context, any more than changing the font or line length would be considered modifying a text. Modifying font or line length might not change a text but it would certainly change the typographic arrangement. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/2011 06:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. The intent of the licence is to protect the freedom of individuals to use the map. Any derivative work must therefore be under the same licence. Making works where all the elements are not free is precisely what this is intended to protect against. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote: So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not available on an open license even if the context of the two images is completely different? The context of the two images is the single derivative image. For the avoidance of doubt the base map is a direct clone of standard osm map rendering so is already available for reuse. It is only the combined image that is not. The fact that it is combined makes the resulting combination of the two works a derivative of both. Please refer to the specific examples I have posed above to help direct the discussion. These include a map of the USA overlaid with crime statistics, a directions map overlaid with a photograph and a map of the Isle of White overlaid with some illustrations. They are all collages (combinations of visual elements in a single image) and are therefore all derivative works. Frederik has explained how it can be argued that BY-SA's private use exception allows online mash-ups. Printed versions of the same works would be distributed/publicly exhibited and so cannot be made under the same exception. (IANAL, TINLA) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 2 February 2011 19:05, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote: So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not available on an open license even if the context of the two images is completely different? The context of the two images is the single derivative image. I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very unhelpful view for the project to take. For the avoidance of doubt the base map is a direct clone of standard osm map rendering so is already available for reuse. It is only the combined image that is not. The fact that it is combined makes the resulting combination of the two works a derivative of both. See above! Please refer to the specific examples I have posed above to help direct the discussion. These include a map of the USA overlaid with crime statistics, a directions map overlaid with a photograph and a map of the Isle of White overlaid with some illustrations. They are all collages (combinations of visual elements in a single image) and are therefore all derivative works. As you will guess by I disagree with this statement as well! Frederik has explained how it can be argued that BY-SA's private use exception allows online mash-ups. Printed versions of the same works would be distributed/publicly exhibited and so cannot be made under the same exception. (IANAL, TINLA) Indeed, I don't believe that there are any lawyers in the house! I do wish that the Foundation would pay for one from time to time to help with general questions like this which matter a lot to potential users of our lovely mapping. 10 non-lawyers are not the same as one lawyer. I will bounce this question of our lawyer at some point in the future and let people know at that point, until then I would encourage people to create combined works. Regards, Peter Miller - Rob. ___ 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 / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 2 February 2011 20:02, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Indeed, I don't believe that there are any lawyers in the house! I do wish that the Foundation would pay for one from time to time to help with general questions like this which matter a lot to potential users of our lovely mapping. Yes. Sorry. I simply haven't had time recently to contribute at all helpfully. Too many hearings and too many clients with problems to afford any spare for this. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Hi, On 02/02/11 19:39, Peter Miller wrote: So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not available on an open license even if the context of the two images is completely different? Yes, I am not only suggesting that I believe that, I am pretty sure that this is the letter and the spirit of the license we have been using for the last ~6 years. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Hi, On 02/02/11 19:47, Jonathan Harley wrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. Let us not confuse CC-BY-SA (about which I'm talking here) with the new license, ODbL. CC-BY-SA does *not* make a distinction between data and other content, indeed it is not even primarily meant to govern data. This is different for ODbL, and ODbL will actually allow you to make just the kind of work I am talking about here, but ODbL is the planned future license and I am talking about the current license. The *only* way to create a work in which one part is CC-BY-SA and the other is not free is if that work is a collective work. In my opinion, something were images from CC-BY-SA and non-CC-BY-SA licensed sources are intermixed in a way that they are not easily separable is *clearly* not a collective work. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 2 February 2011 19:05, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote: Frederik has explained how it can be argued that BY-SA's private use exception allows online mash-ups. Printed versions of the same works would be distributed/publicly exhibited and so cannot be made under the same exception. (IANAL, TINLA) Indeed, I don't believe that there are any lawyers in the house! I do wish that the Foundation would pay for one from time to time to help with general questions like this which matter a lot to potential users of our lovely mapping. 10 non-lawyers are not the same as one lawyer. I will bounce this question of our lawyer at some point in the future and let people know at that point, until then I would encourage people to create combined works. Francis Davey, who has piped up in this thread and is a lawyer, can provide his opinion when he has time. It would also be good if you can also consult with your lawyer and share his opinion here as well. For the record, I also think that Frederik's view is correct. That's how I understand how derivative works operate from working with images and illustrations in Wikipedia, and this OSM interpretation just strengthens that idea. This is one of the two main reasons why I was convinced that CC-BY-SA a poor choice of license for the OSM database (and why ODbL is better): CC forces derivative map images to be CC-BY-SA as well as any inseparable mash-ups of those map images. (The second reason is that you don't have up-front access to the raw data used to make the derivative map images, which I consider more valuable than the image itself in the context of OSM.) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 20:02, Peter Miller wrote: I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very Courts have seen it that way in the case of Shepher Fairey, Jeff Koons, Andy Warhol, Richard Prince, The Beastie Boys, and many other artists and musicians. unhelpful view for the project to take. The ODbL solves this. The fact that it is combined makes the resulting combination of the two works a derivative of both. See above! I believe that this is the legal reality of combining two works into a single derivative work (or of adding new content to a work to produce a derivative work) and how this is regarded by the BY-SA licence. They are all collages (combinations of visual elements in a single image) and are therefore all derivative works. As you will guess by I disagree with this statement as well! I may be missing some aspect of your argument, and I apologize if I am. I am however reasonably certain that the examples under discussion are not collective works. They are of a different character to the examples of collective works that I am aware of. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Peter, On 02/02/11 21:02, Peter Miller wrote: I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very unhelpful view for the project to take. The whole attribution-and-share-alike thing is a very unhelpful situation for the project but it doesn't go away simply because it is identified as such, much less by simply using a definition that suits one's own view. Much as I'd like to! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 02/02/11 18:49, Jonathan Harley wrote: For print, yes, that's about the size of it. I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to paper or to a screen, changes the bits used The difference is who makes the work. If you have an image comprising two separatable layers - say, an OpenLayers map with a CC-BY-SA source and a proprietary source - then both these images are published by the people operating the servers (may be the same server, may be different servers). You have two images, with different licensing, and it is *you* who combines them, using software that runs on *your* computer, into one rendering. If *that* rendering was now published, it would certainly have to be CC-BY-SA (say if you make a screenshot or a print). However, the people you get the images from do not publish that rendering; they publish two distinct images, licensed differently, which is totally ok. There's no way that would ever hold up in court. For one thing, I don't think you're right that the person doing the combining is the person who visits the website, or the person who owns the computer which does the combining. Rather, I'd say the person doing the combining is the person who instructs the computer to combine the images, in other words, the people you get the images from. Furthermore, even if the direct infringer *was* the person who visited the website, the person who wrote the website to facilitate the infringement would still be guilty of contributory infringement. The only way to get around infringement in the case of layers is to successfully claim 1) that no derivative work is produced (probably under the argument that the combined work is not fixed; or 2) that the license permits the particular combination. Of course, the real issue here is that we're talking about infringement for which the actual damages are miniscule, and for which statutory damages probably aren't available (as the work has not been registered). That's the difference between print (where the image is already combined for you, and published in combined form) and a layered web application (where it is you, through certain instructions you give to software running on your machine, who creates the derived work by superimposing the images). Nonsense. The person visiting the website doesn't give the instructions to the machine. The person providing the website does. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Nonsense. The person visiting the website doesn't give the instructions to the machine. The person providing the website does. If you wrote a website which intentionally caused the computer of the person visiting it to overheat, catch on fire, and burn down a building, the person guilty of arson wouldn't be the person who visited the website, it'd be the person who wrote the website. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 13:21, Rob Myers wrote: On 02/01/2011 06:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Peter says that I would consider the proposed resulting work to be 'two or more distinct, separate and independent works selected and arranged into a collective whole with the ccbysa content being used in an entirely unmodified form'. If it's a whole then by definition it's not a collection (a mere aggregation). By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long as the CC-BY content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Layers combined destructively (such as in print) are modified, and so are an adaptation. Firstly, the topmost layer is clearly unmodified by this kind of combination. If a CC-BY tile is below the top layer, then yes, you could argue that it is either modified, or no longer being used whole, by parts of it being hidden. But if we're talking about using OSM data, which is made up of points, as long as they're unmodified before assembly - ie rendering - then I still think it's a collective work and only has to be attributed, not restricted to the same license. ODbL is much clearer about this, but has this same effect - produced works have to be attributed but it doesn't attempt to force a license on them, only on the database they came from. Jonathan (not-a-lawyer, but a user-of-lawyers) -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: I think Peter is right - as long as the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Maybe that's a loophole in the license. But if so, it's a pretty big one. What is meant by content is unmodified? Obviously the printed base map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other interpretation for content is unmodified that you can think of? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 15:59, Jonathan Harley wrote: By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long Oh I see, I didn't realise that's the wording of the licence. That's an unfortunate turn of phrase then. :-) I'll suggest it's changed for CC 4.0. 2.0 UK states: Collective Work means the Work in its entirety in unmodified form along with a number of other separate and independent works http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/legalcode Flattened layers are not separate or independent. 2.0 unported gives some good examples of what is meant by a collective work: Collective Work means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode The examples are of discrete, spatially separated aggregations of separate entities. Flattened layers are unambiguously derivative works. as the CC-BY content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. It says precisely that they must be unmodified, separate and independent after collection. Otherwise they are derivative works. Layers combined destructively (such as in print) are modified, and so are an adaptation. Firstly, the topmost layer is clearly unmodified by this kind of combination. The derived work that exists as a result of combining it with the underlying tiles makes it an adaptation as per UK BY-SA 2.0 1.c If a CC-BY tile is below the top layer, then yes, you could argue that it is either modified, or no longer being used whole, by parts of it being hidden. But if we're talking about using OSM data, I do argue that, and it is the case. But I also argue that it is being combined with other material to create a derivative work, rather than placed alongside it to make a collective work. In either case it is an adaptation and therefore a Derivative Work. which is made up of points, as long as they're unmodified before assembly - ie rendering - then I still think it's a collective work But the rendering of those points, as a derivative of them, is under BY-SA. and only has to be attributed, not restricted to the same license. If it was a collective work then yes. ODbL is much clearer about this, but has this same effect - produced works have to be attributed but it doesn't attempt to force a license on them, only on the database they came from. ODbL is explicitly a database copyleft. It does force a licence on the producers of produced works, and the attribution is forced on the produced works as a way of advertising this. (IANAL, TINLA). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: I think Peter is right - as long as the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Maybe that's a loophole in the license. But if so, it's a pretty big one. What is meant by content is unmodified? Obviously the printed base map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other interpretation for content is unmodified that you can think of? I have assumed it refers to the geodata, which is unmodified unless you start changing the latitudes and longitudes of points. That's the only reading I can think of that makes any sense of the phrase unmodified form in the context of map data (in fact, of any kind of data). Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. Is that what you mean by prohibits everything or allows everything? It seems clear to me that the CC licenses are attempting to allow stuff but impose conditions, not to prohibit everything. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
I have been following the discussion but have been in meetings today so haven't been able to contribute. I agree we can discuss at lenght what 'separable' and 'unmodified' mean as abstract concepts but, as usual with legal contracts, the words will be interpreted in a particular context. It is probably worth looking at some more real examples therefore, in addition to my legal forest boundary example. The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid data was also on an open licence or the crime data was to the side of the map. http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/02/17/typical-crime-map-victimization/ And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. In my view any corrections or additions to the map of features represented on that map view belong in the DB, anything else can be used to create a collection. Regards, Peter On 2 February 2011 16:35, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: I think Peter is right - as long as the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Maybe that's a loophole in the license. But if so, it's a pretty big one. What is meant by content is unmodified? Obviously the printed base map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other interpretation for content is unmodified that you can think of? I have assumed it refers to the geodata, which is unmodified unless you start changing the latitudes and longitudes of points. That's the only reading I can think of that makes any sense of the phrase unmodified form in the context of map data (in fact, of any kind of data). Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. Is that what you mean by prohibits everything or allows everything? It seems clear to me that the CC licenses are attempting to allow stuff but impose conditions, not to prohibit everything. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote: Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. It illustrates that CC have a mountain to climb in making CC 4.0 relevant to databases, and I (genuinely) wish them luck. Electronically, you could perhaps layer one database (represented as pushpins, say) on top of another (represented as other pushpins, or a polyline, or even a map), in a separable way (e.g. layers can be switched off), and call it a collective work. OSM users have traditionally permitted this, but I believe Rob generally refers to it as a consensual hallucination. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5985604.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Hi, On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote: The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid data was also on an open licence or the crime data was to the side of the map. http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/02/17/typical-crime-map-victimization/ Yes. (In fact I presume the overlaid data is PD in this case so no problem.) And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm This is a funny example because you could conceivably cut out a corner from the map, then place the image where it is now... it is just about conceivable to make a copy of this map without copying the image so maybe this could work as a collection. How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Certainly the whole map needs to by CC-BY-SA. We did have some pages with examples about this on our wiki, years ago. I remember the example was a tourist guide with maps and photos, and there were several cases where maps and photos (and text) were sometimes superimposed, sometimes side-by-side, and the whole thing was commented as to what is derived and what is collected. I cannot find it now, however. I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and co-dependency - the question of does the overlaid stuff work without the map. So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its meaning without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your photo just sits there and could just as well sit there without the map, then it could be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I necessarily share and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has something going for it. Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have indeed been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully CC-BY-SA'ed because it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That* I call a strict reading (and one I clearly don't share). Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid data was also on an open licence or the crime data was to the side of the map. http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/02/17/typical-crime-map-victimization/ Yes, that is the intent of the license (specifically, the overlaid data must be CC-BY-SA, not just on an open license). This is my intent when I license my works under the license. And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm I would say that this is fine. How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Whole thing must be CC-BY-SA. Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. Yes, that certainly could be argued, and if you want to be safe, you should release it all under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Hi, this has arisen in a discussion on talk-gb, but I'm paraphrasing to spare you the details. Say you make a printed map that consists of an OSM base map with something else sourced from elsewhere printed on top, e.g. an OSM map with your private dataset of underground pipelines. Until now it was my understanding that such a map can only ever be licensed CC-BY-SA in full; you cannot say the base map is licensed CC-BY-SA but if you trace off the underground pipelines then you violate my copyright. I know that at OSM we always used to say: If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each; if not, then not. For example, several projects using terrain elevation data from CGIAR, which is licensened noncommercial use only, have gone to great lengths to produce multi-layered tiled maps (OSM data on the base layer, then CGIAR data on the semi-transparent intermediate layer, then OSM data again on the top layer) because they have been told that if they merge the data, then the whole tile must be licensed CC-BY-SA - you cannot have a tile that says CC-BY-SA but the contour shadings herein must only be used in a noncommercial context. Over on talk-gb, Peter Miller claimed the opposite; he says that even if multiple sources are combined in an inseparable way (e.g. printed on top of each other), you can still claim that this is a collected work where the CC-BY-SA license applies only to the OSM bit, and not to whatever you printed on top. Of course this would result in a map that can *not* be copied under CC-BY-SA because it is virtually impossible to make a copy and leave out the foreign data that has been printed on top. Peter says that I would consider the proposed resulting work to be 'two or more distinct, separate and independent works selected and arranged into a collective whole with the ccbysa content being used in an entirely unmodified form'. For me, this would be the case if you produce a book with copyrighted data on one page and CC-BY-SA data on the next, but not if you print everything into one so that it cannot be separated and the CC-BY-SA content cannot be accessed separately. I was under the impression that OSM data cannot be used as a base medium to distribute proprietary data. Peter invited me to continue the discussion here rather than on talk-gb, so here we are. Does anyone have an opinion on the matter? I'd be very interested to hear them because I have been explaining CC-BY-SA to a lot of people an I always told them that if they make a printed product it *has* to be CC-BY-SA, fully. Now if it turns out that project opinion is rather more on Peter's side I'd probably make some phone calls tomorrow and tell some people that contrary to what I said earlier, they can go ahead with their projects ;) 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
