[OAM-talk] a dramatically simplified technical proposal

[Steven M. Ottens]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 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.
If the source data is properly licensed, the derived works are also 
properly licensed. For instance CC-SA will allow derived works to be 
used and shared under 'under the same, similar or a compatible license.' 
Which also means you can use it with OSM and their ODbL 
(http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/). I don't think you can 
license the imagery, without licensing its derivatives in one way or the 
other. The copyleft licenses are very much designed to relicense 
derivatives, where most EULAs forbid derivatives. Both have a say on it.
>
> 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.
>
As said CC-BY-SA enforces the derivatives to use the same, similar or 
compatible license, I don't see a problem with those derivatives being 
compatible with other share-alike licenses.

Steven