80n wrote: > It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one. > As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be > compatible.
In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet the relicensing happened. The point is that "compatible" can actually be decided by CC themselves. This thing about ODbL giving the user "fewer rights" is an absolute canard (quack). ODbL is not weaker copyleft than CC-BY-SA, it's simply expressed in a way that is relevant to data. It provides the user with protection in jurisdictions where copyright may not apply to data: CC-BY-SA doesn't. It requires the producer of a derivative to publish the source: CC-BY-SA doesn't. Against this, ODbL clearly defines where the boundaries of sharealike lie in relation to data. In some particular cases this could be viewed as "fewer rights". I actually don't see it that way. CC-BY-SA's application to data is so unclear that the user effectively abrogates their rights in favour of the guys with the best lawyers, who can pay to have it interpreted their way. That isn't, by any stretch, more rights than ODbL - unless you're Google. > It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one. > The attribution is not to the original author. Again fewer rights for > the contributor. Again, that's not true. ODbL simply says in 4.2c that you must "c. Keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to this Licence". That provides attribution to the copyright/db right holder, i.e. the original author. > [...] > Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's > contribution > may not, on its own, be a database. That's definitely not true. A single person's contribution may certainly be a database. The EU database right legislation makes no requirement for multiple authorship and neither does ODbL. > The only proposal I've seen, and it > appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away > *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL. > I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license? The FIL seems to be > a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL. I definitely agree (yay) that the ODbL/FIL relationship needs much more discussion than it's had to date. I believe Jordan's original intent (but he can say this much better than me, and contradict me if necessary) was that users' contributions could individually be licensed under ODbL. Your contributions would be ODbL. My contributions would be ODbL. OSM would aggregate them into one big ODbL database. The multiple-attribution question is answered either by "a location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to look for it" (4.2d) being www.openstreetmap.org - or by users agreeing, as a condition of contributing to OSM, that they choose not to place any copyright or database right _notices_ on their contribution other than a reference to ODbL. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22261200.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
