Lutz Horn schrieb: > Hi, > > Frederik Ramm <frederik <at> remote.org> writes: >> This means that any share-alike provision we slap on OSM data has a much >> more direct influence on the potential uses of the data than a >> share-alike provision on software on on creative works has. >> >> ODbL tries to reduce this problem by exempting "produced works" from the >> share-alike effect, and this is a good thing, but still there will be >> many use cases adversely affected by the remaining share-alike for data. > > Could you please explain why you consider this influence a problem? > > Actually I consider it a good thing. SA must apply for *both* data and > produced > work.
Then you have to vote against ODbL, which explicitly states that produced work must not fall under the ODbL SA (4.5 b). However, the ODbL states that any underlying database changes must be made available (4.6). But where to draw the line? If you produce a 2 hour film that shows OSM maps for a few mins, is this a produced work or not? For me it's not. If you provide an atlas of your city, that contains only maps and street register all derived from OSM data, is this a produced work or not? For me it is. Unfortunately, I simply don't see a way to put that into a legal document that would be valid all over the world. Regards, ULFL _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
