On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> wrote: > M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@...> writes: > > >> I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any > >> compatibility problem. > > > >PD but still with certain conditions respected: no re-engineering, > >attribution, etc. like requested by the OdbL? As far as I understand > >this, while the tiles themselves might be quite unrestricted, the > >contained data still won't be --- also under OdbL. > > Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least > under > some interpretations. It's allowed to make proprietary, > all-rights-reserved > map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public > domain > one you can't. (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution > requirement is more reasonable.) >
ODbL does not contain any tracing restrictions. An early draft contained a no-reverse-engineering clause, but this was removed. ODbL does not impose any restrictions whatsoever over the *use* of a produced work. If I want to take a PD licensed copy of a produced work I can do whatever I like with it. Some people, including Jordan Hatcher, do believe that ODbL does not permit such freedom, but there's no words that I can see to that effect. The *only* rider on a produced work is a rather weak and non-viral attribution demand: "However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License." Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone tracing from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it. > > One of the main problems with the proposed ODbL/DbCL setup is that it's > pretty > murky what is allowed and what isn't allowed; and also quite unclear > whether the > things that are disallowed are truly enforceable, or just magic text which > has > no real weight. If OSM itself produced a public domain tileset, the > clarity of > the action would compensate a bit for the uncertainty of the licence; it > would > be clear for all that rendered map tiles can be distributed under any > terms. > > >Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well? > > Quite possibly. In my view the attempt to shoehorn a map into a 'database' > is > not the best way to look at things; the distinction between 'database' and > 'database contents' seems nonsensical in the case of map data, and indeed > you > can argue that a rendered map is just as much a 'derived database' as a > 'produced work'. > > (I much prefer the simplicity of the CC-BY-SA licence where if it is > subject to > copyright, the licence applies, and if not, it doesn't. The scope of > copyright > is something that courts and legislation address directly, whereas the > legal > contortions of the ODbL will never be truly clarified unless a specific > case > goes to court.) > > -- > Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
