(Replying to two messages at once as they seem related)
Anthony wrote:
> But it's quite a leap from "some databases (e.g. white pages)
> are non-copyrightable in some jurisdictions" and "databases
> are non-copyrightable". In fact, I'd say it's quite plainly false.
Oh, absolutely. Copyright and database right law is sufficiently complex,
and unclear, when applied to primarily factual data that it would be a brave
person who made any unambiguous statement like the latter... especially here
in England, where you can probably copyright your own farts.
It's not a binary situation where CC-BY-SA never works and ODbL always
works. Rather, ODbL provides a very significantly higher likelihood of
protection.
> [second message]
> You must be misreading them. ODbL is weak copyleft, plus a
> database rights license, plus a contract agreement. CC-BY-SA is
> strong copyleft. Do you dispute that, or do you claim that these
> two are in the same spirit?
You weren't asking me :) , but I'd dispute that. I wouldn't say one was
weaker or stronger than the other: ODbL's share-alike is simply more clearly
defined for data.
The canonical example of "strong copyleft" is the GPL - a software licence
whose copyleft persists on any software you build from the same source code.
In the same vein, CC-BY-SA is a "strong copyleft" creative works licence,
and ODbL is a "strong copyleft" data licence. A "weak copyleft" data
licence, taking the LGPL as example, would allow you to create derivative
databases from OSM where copyright persisted into the street data but not
(say) any road speed data which you had mixed with it - even though the road
speed data relies on the street data to function. ODbL doesn't allow that
(and I believe that was a deliberate choice by its authors).
Because CC-BY-SA is a creative works licence, not a data licence, its
"strong"/"weak" effects are unpredictable when applied to data. Six
examples:
- routing code designed solely to work with OSM data: copyleft does not
persist into code
- printed cartographic map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into
creative work
- web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied
programatically: copyleft does not persist into creative work
- web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied manually:
copyleft persists into creative work
- printed mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into mashup
data
- web mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft does not persist into
mashup data
ODbL, as a data licence applied to data, removes most of this
unpredictability. No doubt if one applied ODbL (a data licence) to creative
works, the results would be just as unpredictable as when one applies
CC-BY-SA to data. ;)
All such licences expressly limit the scope of what they can be applied to.
One way in which ODbL does it is the concept of a Produced Work; CC-BY-SA's
equivalent is a list of what it's applicable to. Which approach is clearer
is open to debate, as we've seen with the recent (interesting) posts here
about CC 3.0.
The other way is with the "collective works" clause in ODbL and CC-BY-SA (or
a "collection" in CC 3.0). The GPL has a similar concept: FSF call it an
"aggregate". As the GPL FAQ says:
> By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
> communication mechanisms normally used between two separate
> programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules
> normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the
> communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal
> data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts
> as combined into a larger program.
which avid readers of this list will recognise as not being entirely
different to the discussion we were having a few months back about
collective databases, in which Matt very generously titled a similar concept
("if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough") "the Fairhurst
Doctrine".
Is one "stronger" than the other? I don't think there's one easy answer. On
the one hand, ODbL has some provisions which require the end-user to give
more back: in particular, the GPL-like requirement to release source. On the
other, some items are caught within CC-BY-SA's copyleft and not ODbL's. (I'm
quite prepared to believe that there may be items that are caught by ODbL's
copyleft and not CC-BY-SA's, given the existence of "loopholes" in CC-BY-SA
such as the programatically-generated derivative one.)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-ODbL-vs-CC-by-SA-pros-and-cons-tp5473721p5490444.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
