El Viernes, 3 de Octubre de 2008, Adrian escribió: [...] > The legal FAQ says that derived data products (that are distributed) > must be made available under the terms of the licence - I interpret that > to mean for free, am I badly wrong?
Wrong. Free as in freedom doesn't equal free as in free beer. Let's take ITO's wonderful product, "OSM Mapper" (http://www.itoworld.com/product/osm) as an example of how this works. ITO basically gets a daily planet dump, and generates pretty graphics from it. Now, ITO could charge some money for the service - rendering the pretty graphics - but the result would fall under the same copyleft license (e.g. the images are CC-by-sa). Another example: I could take a planet dump, make a derivated product, and *not* release it into the public. You could then buy it from me, and you would *not* be bound to release it to the public for free. You could, though, possibly lowering the possibilities of me selling a second copy for money (depending on the novelty of my product). > Against that background I look at the OSM Foundation members and the > Cloudmade founders and start to feel a little nervous that the same > people that are driving licence change and have access to the database > that the rest of us contributors don't are somehow trying to make money > from OSM. They indeed are. But from a legal point of view there is *nothing* that stops you from following their ways to make money. You have all the data at your disposal, now and in the future, so you can compete with them in fair terms. -- ---------------------------------- Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.26-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.9, and PHP 5.2.6-3 generating this signature. Uptime: 21:13:27 up 43 days, 9:09, 4 users, load average: 0.64, 0.80, 0.56
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
