Christopher Schmidt wrote:
I think that the public-domain only data will be a 'small cool skin'
of imagery, but it should still be there and usable. In addition,
if you can deal with other licenses -- for print works, and many
others, Attribution
probably works relatively well -- then you can have access to more imagery.
Really, there's two different licensing issues here:
- licensing of the imagery
- licensing of derived vector works ("tracings")
I can see the merit in OAM offering variously-licensed imagery. As you
say, lots of providers will insist on attribution, and solving that is
a fairly trivial technical issue with few ramifications for the
end-user.
But I don't feel that we should accept any restrictions on the latter.
Preventing people from tracing is a Bad Thing that requires
hard-to-understand contracts over and above the clear intent of
copyright law. There isn't even the ODbL defence (where contracts are
necessary for a level playing field internationally) - I don't know of
any jurisdiction where tracing non-original features from imagery
inherits a copyright.
Even if the tracing tries to enforce a share-alike component through
contract (e.g. "your derivations must be licensed CC-BY-SA") it will
almost certainly end up being incompatible with other share-alike
licences, because you're creating data (needs a data licence) from
something that'll _probably_ have a creative works licence.
cheers
Richard
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org
