I’m compiling a topographical wall map, which I plan to distribute for non-commercial purposes. OSM data would be very useful in this map. However, one of the crucial data sources in my map does not allow commercial use, whereas the CC license used by OSM does (Legal FAQ). I think it is a big paradox that OPEN street map, defined as OPEN DATA, actually isn’t open for inclusion in strictly non-commercial products. Or have I got it wrong?
OpenStreetMap currently uses the CC-by-SA license, which requires that you publish data and products derived from OpenStreetMap under the same license (“share alike”), and prevents you from imposing any additional restrictions.
In the future, OpenStreetMap might be published under the Open Database License (ODbL). This would allow you to created derived products under any license, and would only require that the same license is used for derived data.
It is sometimes possible to circumvent the share alike restrictions by distributing the share-alike parts and other, incompatible parts of the products separately. This is likely not possible in your case. This means that you will not be able to use OSM data in a product that is restricted to non-commercial uses only until the project has moved to ODbL.
Oh, and by the way - the paradox isn’t really a paradox at all, it’s just another variation of the long-standing dispute over the meaning of terms such as “free license” or “open license” that originated in the free software community. Some believe that the freedoms granted by a “truly open” license should even include the freedom to make a derivative product that is not open (this is the philosophy behind e.g. the BSD and CC-0 licenses), while others argue that an open license should guarantee that all derivatives of the work are also published under an open license (e.g. GPL, CC-by-SA).