Peter Miller wrote: > Tim Waters (chippy) wrote: > >> For example, I'm not sure but I think that "Publishing a simple map >> in a book, newsletter" would require a not-so-simple requirement to >> make the data they used available, somehow... > > I agree. Would you like to propose the wording? (and anyone else for that > matter). In the case of the map in the newsletter there should possibly be > two different use cases not one. One where standard OSM data is being used, > and another where a Derivative Database is used containing additional or > changed data. In the first case nothing no DB needs to be published, in the > second it does. Possibly the first use case is a map of a village as > currently in the OSM DB, for the second it is the village with a proposed > Bypass included and some minor roads diverted etc. This would need to be > described in a fork of the DB and then either a differential DB would need > to be published, or a copy of the full dataset for the fork along with the > map in the newsletter.
This is all reasonably well-established territory. Two general principles. Firstly, the burden is on the person producing the book (in ODBL language, the "integrated experience") to make the data available. That's a significant change, and improvement, from CC-BY-SA where the burden was on OSM if it wanted to reintegrate the data. So, to some extent, "a not-so-simple requirement" is not our problem. Secondly, the key words are things like "machine readable". There is no requirement to rewrite it in any particular format, so - from the point-of-view of the book publisher - this gets it back from "not-so-simple" to "simple". As an example, I've already published maps in a book which combine OSM and other (public domain) data. Under ODBL, I would need to have supplied the source code - in this case, the raw Illustrator files, as no GIS was used - on request. I'd probably take about two minutes to strip out the non-database elements from the file (the cartographic styling) before supplying them. The revised ODBL, as ever, gets it just right. You might even get the impression that the licence was drawn up with OSM in mind and revised with the help of some active OSM contributors. ;) cheers Richard _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
