i’m looking for clarification on content licensing that is required to join panoramax federation. I’m building “Hillview”, which is comparable, but not a panoramax instance.
I’ve tried to model my content licensing on mapillary, with a “CC BY-SA 4.0 + OSM grant” option - Licensing - Hillview - , would that be suitable, or does federation require the whole “usable to create other derivated data under LO…” kind of clause? In my understanding, the LO clause creates a hole that lets the content end up in proprietary silos. I can implement that option for potential users that would like to contribute to panoramax federation through hillview, but i may not be ready to release all my content that way. The primary motivation for sharing is to support OSM, not google maps etc.
Allowing anybody to create non photographic derivatives from Panoramax pictures in CC-BY (similar to L.O) does no mean it is ending in a proprietary silo, because it has to be licensed under CC-BY… which is far from being proprietary !
OSM-France made this choice so that Panoramax pictures can be used by public services (like IGN), local authorities, government to update their data that are published under LO/CC-BY.
Of course the same applies to ODbL, so that at least Panoramax pictures can be used to contribute directly to OSM.
We also specified that AI models trained with Panoramax data had to be shared like any other non phtographic derivatives.
Anyhow, you’re free to used the license of your choice on your instance, exactly like you would do by using an Office software to write some text.
One last thing is the federation and the meta-catalog… which can limit the kind of license accepted to be included. This is more a matter of making thing simple for reusers as if we have many different licenses it can become a mess to check for each picture if that fits to you or not.
It also make thing simpler for contributors.