----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Harley" <j...@spiffymap.net>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community
Guidelines for temporary file
On 30/06/11 11:55, David Groom wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Fairhurst"
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4).
I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database
doesn't reduce the amount of information.
The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike
licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have
and
they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we
don't
(e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back.
IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :)
I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being naive.
It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many different ways,
including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with "additional
contents" in the form of already rendered map data, with poor accuracy and
no metadata, which would make it virtually impossible for things like a
road network to be extracted; and/or publishing the derived database under
a license that's compatible with ODbL but incompatible with the CTs.
I have to admit to being slightly confused about what licence a derived
database can be published under.
Clause 4.4a "Any Derivative Database that You Publicly Use must be only
under the terms of: (i). This License; (ii). A later version of this License
similar in spirit to this License; or (iii). A compatible license."
Clause 4.8 "Each time You communicate .... any Derivative Database to anyone
else in any way, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the
Database on the same terms and conditions as this License"
Clasue 4.8 seems to me to render Clause 4.4a obsolete since the only way to
have a licence on "the same terms and conditions as this License" would be
if the text was word for word the same, unless of course 4.8 is meant to
mean the "same *spirit* as the terms and conditions as this License", but
thats not what it says..
That would certainly seem a very good thing. In lots of peoples opinion
where you *add* data, then it is good if that data can be shared back to
the community.
It would seem a good thing and I hope people who use OSM will do it, but I
don't believe ODbL enforces it effectively, while placing a heavy burden
on anyone who wants to use OSM without combining it with other data.
However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data,
either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it
from one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring
compliance with ODbL clause 4.6.
I can't see any point. At least you don't have to publish your
database/method unless someone requests it.
I hadn't reaslised that, where is that stated in the ODbL licence?
Regards
David
But we have to assume that sooner or later, some busy-body is going to go
around doing exactly that.
J.
--
Jonathan Harley : Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd
Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
