> In short, if you want to argue that copyright has any relevance to the
> OSM database you need to show that it contains some original selection,
> arrangement, or annotation, which are within the domain of copyright, in
> addition to the plain facts, which are not.
[reposted from the Australia/New Zealand OSGeo mailing list thread on this topic; Sept 2010]
fwiw, I consider my work on OSM to be a useful art- the map data is not
truth, a map is an abstract representation of reality. The cartographer
(or data entry monkey) can and does take a lot of artistic license in
designing and placing their data points, be it in the density of vertices
or the decision of what to include and what not to include.
the telephone number is not an abstraction of a telephone number, it /is/
the data. the page layout is the copyrightable thing there.
in this way the OSM database has a lot more copyrightable work in it than
say Google Map's satellite view (c) DigitalGlobe etc., who's only claim
to artistic work is the placement of the satellite and the elevation
also, without a ShareAlike-style license, for my part I doubt I'd bother
to contribute very much to OSM beyond perhaps fixing errors in my local
neighborhood to make backyard BBQ invites less confusing for my friends;
same as the corrections I've pushed upstream to Google Maps. I've little
interest in becoming an unpaid employee of MegaMap Int'l, Ltd.