On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Henk Hoff <o...@toffehoff.nl> wrote:
> Peter Millar schreef: > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Henk Hoff" <o...@toffehoff.nl> > >> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." < > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> > >> Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2009 01:54:07 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, > Portugal > >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of > Produced Works > >> > >> > >> > >> The LWG has mentioned this issue with ODC. There will be an RC2 of the > >> ODbL in which this problem is solved. The change will be: > >> > >> 1. Add something on produced work/derivative db question along lines of: > >> > >> "Any derivative Database used in the creation of a Publicly Available > >> Produced Work should be considered itself as Publicly Available and > >> therefore subject to Section 4.4." (where Section 4.4 is the Share > >> Alike clause) > >> > >> 2. Remove the reverse engineering clause. > >> > >> > >> > >> With these two changes the focus of the SA-clause (within the ODbL) is > >> on the data and not the produced work as a whole. It's basicly saying: > >> we don't care what license you use for your Produced Work, as long as > >> the derivative database that you used to create the Produced Work is > >> publicly available under the ODbL license (or a by OSMF determined > >> compatible one). > >> > >> Since the data itself will have ODbL, we don't need the reverse > >> engineering clause anymore on any produced work. > >> > >> This also protects any copyright data that is used with a collective (!) > >> database (since there is no reverse engineering applicable). > >> > >> > >> > >> We (the LWG) think this is an adequate solution to the problem of having > >> Produced Work released under another license. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Henk Hoff > >> > > > > I'm not sure I follow this. Is it proposed that the reverse engineering > > clause is removed altogether or just in the context of a Produced Work > with a > > share-alike licence? > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > It is proposed to removed the clause 4.7 altogether, because it suits no > purpose with the addition of derivative databases being public when the > produced work is also public. > Why bother to do all the reverse engineering when the data with which > the produced work is made is already freely available? In the RC1 this > was not the case. > > So if you have a Produced Work based on: > - the database: no need for reverse engineering since the database is > freely available > The database is not freely available. It is only available under OdbL. The incentive to reverse engineer a produced work would be to create map data that isn't constrained by the OdbL. This modification would allow that to happen. This is unsatisfactory. 80n
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk