On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Anthony wrote: >> >> C'mon, that's what "weak copyleft" means. Not viral for some types of >> derived works. > > If that is indeed the definition of "weak copyleft" - and I'd like you to > cite a source on that - then we're changing from one sort of weak copyleft > license to another sort of weak copyleft license.
I suppose you're changing from one (moderately) weak copyleft license to another, weaker copyleft license. > But (a) I don't think you have the definition right, and (b) I don't even > know why we're debating which labels from software licensing are applicable > to ODbL. You can call ODbL "blue copyleft" or "mint copyleft" if you want, > it doesn't help the discussion. I'm only debating it because you challenged me on it. Frankly, I didn't think it was going to be a matter of dispute. > If you make a produced work based on a derived database under ODbL, you have > to share the database but not the work. If you do the same under CC-BY-SA, > you have to share the work but not the database. Which license is "strong" > and which is "weak"? You're dropping context by omitting the word "copyleft". If you add back the context, it is clear that ODbL is weak copyleft and CC-BY-SA, at least in that particular contet, is strong copyleft. Copyleft does not refer to whether or not you have to "share" source code. If refers to whether or not you have to license derivatives under the same license. > The differ in where exactly share-alike is applied, but they do not differ in > strength. Apparently you've never heard the term "weak copyleft" and "strong copyleft", because you keep dropping the context of what the terms mean. Again, "copyleft" was a term coined by the Free Software Foundation to refer to the requirement to release derivative works under the same license. It has nothing to do with the requirement to "share alike" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and nothing to do with the requirement to release source code. "Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms ensure that all copies of all versions carry more or less the same distribution terms." "Noncopylefted free software comes from the author with permission to redistribute and modify, and also to add additional restrictions to it." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html The term "weak copyleft" was also coined by the FSF, and used to describe the Lesser GPL (originally called the Library GPL). If you'd like to learn more about the term "copyleft", along with other terms like "weak copyleft" and "strong copyleft", a good starting point is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ Once you've read this and come to an understanding of what the terms "weak copyleft" and "strong copyleft" mean, another good bit of reading would be the thread at http://www.mail-archive.com/legal-talk@openstreetmap.org/msg01761.html [quote] i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. [/quote] More viral = stronger copyleft. Less viral = weaker copyleft. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
