Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
sharealike.
Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
*"Derivative Work"* means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work
in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
*"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or
encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along
with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent
works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as
defined below) for the purposes of this License.
As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative derivatives,
since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and there is no US
database protection law), a "derivative work" needs quite a bit of the
original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative work" was always much
narrower than what a colloquial understanding of what "derived" might be,
and the change in license did not change that.
-Kathleen
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira <nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
> documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of lies
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
>
> *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad
> guys” may be able to use it anyway." *
>
> *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
> progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
> have it written explicitly for data."*
>
> *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *
>
> *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
> commercial interests?*
>
> - *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
> Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
> publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license.*
>
>
> - *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and release
> it under a commercial license.*
>
>
> - *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
> license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
> can be made and released by a different body.*
>
>
> - *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
> contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."*
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm, <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
>> > “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
>> > includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
>> > other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
>> > Contents.
>>
>> Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this
>> definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".
>>
>> I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had
>> made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count
>> of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the
>> average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital,
>> or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL
>> because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of
>> anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble
>> OSM).
>>
>> I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the
>> ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database"
>> definition.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
